Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Mar:4:12.
doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2016.00012. Epub 2016 Mar 8.

Predictive Modeling of Estrogen Receptor Binding Agents Using Advanced Cheminformatics Tools and Massive Public Data

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Predictive Modeling of Estrogen Receptor Binding Agents Using Advanced Cheminformatics Tools and Massive Public Data

Kathryn Ribay et al. Front Environ Sci. 2016 Mar.
Free PMC article

Abstract

Estrogen receptors (ERα) are a critical target for drug design as well as a potential source of toxicity when activated unintentionally. Thus, evaluating potential ERα binding agents is critical in both drug discovery and chemical toxicity areas. Using computational tools, e.g., Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) models, can predict potential ERα binding agents before chemical synthesis. The purpose of this project was to develop enhanced predictive models of ERα binding agents by utilizing advanced cheminformatics tools that can integrate publicly available bioassay data. The initial ERα binding agent data set, consisting of 446 binders and 8307 non-binders, was obtained from the Tox21 Challenge project organized by the NIH Chemical Genomics Center (NCGC). After removing the duplicates and inorganic compounds, this data set was used to create a training set (259 binders and 259 non-binders). This training set was used to develop QSAR models using chemical descriptors. The resulting models were then used to predict the binding activity of 264 external compounds, which were available to us after the models were developed. The cross-validation results of training set [Correct Classification Rate (CCR) = 0.72] were much higher than the external predictivity of the unknown compounds (CCR = 0.59). To improve the conventional QSAR models, all compounds in the training set were used to search PubChem and generate a profile of their biological responses across thousands of bioassays. The most important bioassays were prioritized to generate a similarity index that was used to calculate the biosimilarity score between each two compounds. The nearest neighbors for each compound within the set were then identified and its ERα binding potential was predicted by its nearest neighbors in the training set. The hybrid model performance (CCR = 0.94 for cross validation; CCR = 0.68 for external prediction) showed significant improvement over the original QSAR models, particularly for the activity cliffs that induce prediction errors. The results of this study indicate that the response profile of chemicals from public data provides useful information for modeling and evaluation purposes. The public big data resources should be considered along with chemical structure information when predicting new compounds, such as unknown ERα binding agents.

Keywords: QSAR modeling; bioassay profiling; biosimilarity; endocrine disrupting chemicals; estrogen receptor α.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
The hybrid modeling workflow.
FIGURE 2
FIGURE 2. The performance of all resulting models
(A) Cross-validation of the 518 training set compounds; (B) external validation of 264 unknown compounds.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Blair RM, Fang H, Branham WS, Hass BS, Dial SL, Moland CL, et al. The estrogen receptor relative binding affinities of 188 natural and xenochemicals: structural diversity of ligands. Toxicol Sci. 2000;54:138–153. doi: 10.1093/toxsci/54.1.138. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Breiman L. Random forests. Mach Learn. 2001;45:5–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324. - DOI
    1. Committee on Toxicity Testing and Assessment of Environmental Agents N.R.C. Toxicity Testing in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2007.
    1. Cruz-Monteagudo M, Medina-Franco J, Pérez-Castillo Y, Nicolotti O, Cordeiro MN, Borges F. Activity cliffs in drug discovery: Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde? Drug Discov Today. 2014;19:1069–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.drudis.2014.02.003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dalgaard P. Introductory Statistics with R. New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media; 2008.

LinkOut - more resources