Abstract

BackgroundIn the present work, we aim to transfer to the field of virtual screening the predictiveness curve, a metric that has been advocated in clinical epidemiology. The literature describes the use of predictiveness curves to evaluate the performances of biological markers to formulate diagnoses, prognoses and assess disease risks, assess the fit of risk models, and estimate the clinical utility of a model when applied to a population. Similarly, we use logistic regression models to calculate activity probabilities related to the scores that the compounds obtained in virtual screening experiments. The predictiveness curve can provide an intuitive and graphical tool to compare the predictive power of virtual screening methods.ResultsSimilarly to ROC curves, predictiveness curves are functions of the distribution of the scores and provide a common scale for the evaluation of virtual screening methods. Contrarily to ROC curves, the dispersion of the scores is well described by predictiveness curves. This property allows the quantification of the predictive performance of virtual screening methods on a fraction of a given molecular dataset and makes the predictiveness curve an efficient tool to address the early recognition problem. To this last end, we introduce the use of the total gain and partial total gain to quantify recognition and early recognition of active compounds attributed to the variations of the scores obtained with virtual screening methods. Additionally to its usefulness in the evaluation of virtual screening methods, predictiveness curves can be used to define optimal score thresholds for the selection of compounds to be tested experimentally in a drug discovery program. We illustrate the use of predictiveness curves as a complement to ROC on the results of a virtual screening of the Directory of Useful Decoys datasets using three different methods (Surflex-dock, ICM, Autodock Vina).ConclusionThe predictiveness curves cover different aspects of the predictive power of the scores, allowing a detailed evaluation of the performance of virtual screening methods. We believe predictiveness curves efficiently complete the set of tools available for the analysis of virtual screening results.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13321-015-0100-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

  • In the present work, we aim to transfer to the field of virtual screening the predictiveness curve, a metric that has been advocated in clinical epidemiology

  • Assessment of the predictive power of a scoring function We first illustrated the use of the predictiveness curve as a complement to the receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve with the results obtained from Surflex-dock, ICM, and Autodock Vina on target retinoic X receptor (RXR) of the directory of useful decoys (DUD) dataset (Fig. 2)

  • The ROC curve profiles suggested that acceptable early recognition has been achieved by the three methods (Surflex-dock pAUC2 %: 0.167, ICM pAUC2 %: 0.342, Autodock Vina pAUC2 %: 0.330), which was confirmed in terms of enrichment (Surflex-dock EF2 %: 16.84, ICM EF2 %: 24.06, Autodock Vina EF2 %: 26.47)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We aim to transfer to the field of virtual screening the predictiveness curve, a metric that has been advocated in clinical epidemiology. The aim of virtual screening methods is to enrich a subset of molecules in potentially active compounds In this context, different metrics have emerged to evaluate the performance of virtual screening methods: enrichment factors (EFs), receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curves [2], the area under the ROC curve. Virtual screening methods are used to prioritize a subset of the screened compound collection for experimental testing, whereas ROC curves and ROC AUC summarize the ability of a method to rank a database over its entirety [4, 6]. The true positive fraction (TPF) and false positive fraction (FPF) of the ROC plot can reflect a very different number of compounds on an identical scale, which can be misleading for analyzing the early recognition of active compounds

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.