Could deep learning in neural networks improve the QSAR models?

References

• G.M. Maggiora, On outliers and activity cliffs – Why QSAR often disappoints, J Chem. Inf. Model. 46 (2006), pp. 1535. doi:10.1021/ci060117s.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Gini and A. Katrizky, Predictive toxicology of chemicals: Experiences and impact of AI tools, AAAI Spring Symposium on Predictive Toxicology SS-99-01, AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California, 1999.
   Google Scholar
• J. Devillers, Neural Networks in QSAR and Drug Design, Academic Press, San Diego, CA, 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Y. LeCun, Y. Bengio, and G. Hinton, Deep learning, Nature 521 (2015), pp. 436–444. doi:10.1038/nature14539.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• L. Zhang, J. Tan, D. Han, and H. Zhu, From machine learning to deep learning: Progress in machine intelligence for rational drug discovery, Drug Discov. Today 22 (2017), pp. 1680–1685.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Goh, C. Siegel, A. Vishnu, N.O. Hodas, and N. Baker, Chemception: A deep neural network with minimal chemistry knowledge matches the performance of expert-developed QSAR/QSPR models (2017). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.066892017.
   Google Scholar
• B. Ames, F.D. Lee, and W.E. Durston, An improved bacterial test system for the detection and classification of mutagens and carcinogens, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 70 (1973), pp. 782–786. doi:10.1073/pnas.70.3.782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• E. Benfenati, A. Golbamaki, G. Raitano, A. Roncaglioni, S. Manganelli, F. Lemke, U. Norinder, E. Lo Piparo, M. Honma, A. Manganaro, and G. Gini, A large comparison of integrated SAR/QSAR models of the Ames test for mutagenicity, SAR QSAR Environ. Res. 29 (2018), pp. 591–611.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Gini and F. Zanoli, Machine learning and deep learning methods in ecotoxicological QSAR modeling, in Ecotoxicological QSARs, K. Roy, ed., Springer, 2019. in press.
   Google Scholar
• M. Weininger, A. Weininger, and J.L. Weininger, SMILES. 2. Algorithm for generation of unique SMILES notation, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 29 (1989), pp. 97–101. doi:10.1021/ci00062a008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• W. Piegorsch and E. Zeige, Measuring intra-assay agreement for the Ames Salmonella assay, in Statistical Methods in Toxicology, L. Hotorn, ed., Lecture Notes in Medical Informatics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, 1991, pp. 35–41.
   Google Scholar
• NIHS. Ames/QSAR international collaborative study. Available at https://bit.ly/2z7Rg2g.
   Google Scholar
• Gene-tox. Available at https://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/sis/htmlgen?GENETOX.
   Google Scholar
• Chemical carcinogenesis research information system (ccris). Availiable at https://bit.ly/2Su2zuw.
   Google Scholar
• EURL ECVAM genotoxicity and carcinogenicity consolidated database of Ames positive chemicals. European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC) (2018). Available at https://data.europa.eu/euodp/data/dataset/jrc-eurl-ecvam-genotoxicity-carcinogenicity-ames.
   Google Scholar
• E. Benfenati, A. Manganaro, and G. Gini, VEGA-QSAR: AI inside a platform for predictive toxicology, Workshop Popularize Artificial Intelligence (PAI) 2013, 2013, pp. 21–28. Available at http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1107. doi:10.1016/j.msec.2013.10.014
   Google Scholar
• K. Hansen, S. Mika, T. Schroeter, A. Sutter, A. Ter Laak, T. Steger-Hartmann, N. Heinrich, and K.-R. Müller, Benchmark data set for in silico prediction of Ames mutagenicity, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 49 (2009), pp. 2077–2081. PMID: 19702240. doi:10.1021/ci900161g.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pubchem. Available at https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.
   Google Scholar
• N. O’Boyle, Generating multiple SMILES (2018). Available at https://baoilleach.
   Google Scholar
• M.G. Whitesides and R.F. Ismagilov, Complexity in chemistry, Science 284 (1999), pp. 89–92. doi:10.1126/science.284.5411.89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• R. Wang, Y. Fu, and L. Lai, A new atom-additive method for calculating partition coefficients, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci 37 (1997), pp. 615–621. doi:10.1021/ci960169p.
   Google Scholar
• T. Chen and H. Chen, Universal approximation to nonlinear operators by neural networks with arbitrary activation functions and its application to dynamical systems, IEEE Trans. Neural Network 6 (1995), pp. 911–917. doi:10.1109/72.392253.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D.P. Kingma and J. Ba, Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. CoRR, abs/1412.6980 (2014). Available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980.
   Google Scholar
• W.Y. Zou, R. Socher, D. Cer, and C.D. Manning, Bilingual word embeddings for phrase-based machine translation, Proc of 2013 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, Seattle, Washington, USA, 2013, pp. 1393–1398.
   Google Scholar
• Y. Bengio, P. Simard, and P. Frasconi, Learning long-term dependencies with gradient descent is difficult, IEEE Trans. Neural. Network 5 (1994), pp. 157–166. doi:10.1109/72.279181.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• S. Hochreiter and J. Schmidhiber, Long short-term memory, Neural Comput. 9 (1997), pp. 1735–1780.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• J. Chung, C. Gulcehre, and K. Cho, Gated feedback recurrent neural networks, 2015. arXiv:1502.02367, https://arxiv.org/abs/1502.02367.
   Google Scholar
• M. Schuster and K.K. Paliwal, Bidirectional recurrent neural networks, IEEE Trans. Signal Process. 45 (1997), pp. 2673–2681.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Introduction to sequence models—rnn, bidirectional rnn, lstm, gru (2015). Available at https://bit.ly/2FoKGev.
   Google Scholar
• K. Cho, A. Courville, and Y. Bengio, Describing multimedia content using attention-based encoder-decoder networks, IEEE Trans. Multimedia 17 (2015), pp. 1875-1886. doi:10.1109/TMM.2015.2477044.
   Google Scholar
• G.B. Goh, N.O. Hodas, C. Siegel, and A. Vishnu, SMILES2Vec: An Interpretable General-purpose Deep Neural Network for Predicting Chemical Properties, 2017. arXiv e-prints, https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.02034.
   Google Scholar
• M. Honma, A. Kitazawa, A. Cayley, R.V. Williams, C. Barber, T. Hanser, R. Saiakhov, S. Chakravarti, G.J. Myatt, K.P. Cross, E. Benfenati, G. Raitano, O. Mekenyan, P. Petkov, C. Bossa, R. Benigni, C.L. Battistelli, A. Giuliani, O. Tcheremenskaia, C. DeMeo, U. Norinder, H. Koga, C. Jose, N. Jeliazkova, N. Kochev, V. Paskaleva, C. Yang, P.R. Daga, R.D. Clark, and J. Rathman, Improvement of quantitative structure–activity relationship (QSAR) tools for predicting Ames mutagenicity: Outcomes of the Ames/QSAR international challenge project, Mutagenesis 34 (2019), pp. 3–16. doi:10.1093/mutage/gey031.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Gini, T. Ferrari, D. Cattaneo, N. Golbamaki, A. Manganaro, and E. Benfenati, Automatic knowledge extraction from chemical structures: The case of mutagenicity prediction, SAR QSAR Environ. Res 24 (2013), pp. 365–383. doi:10.1080/1062936X.2013.773376.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• G. Raitano, A. Roncaglioni, A. Manganaro, M. Honma, L. Sousselier, Q.T. Do, E. Payan, and E. Benfenati, Integrating in Silico Models for the Prediction of Mutagenicity (Ames Test) of Botanical Ingredients of Cosmetics, Personal communication, 2019.
   Google Scholar
• R. Benigni and C. Bossa, Mechanisms of chemical carcinogenicity and mutagenicity: A review with implications for predictive toxicology, Chem. Rev. 111 (2011), pp. 2507–2536. doi:10.1021/cr100222q.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• A.A. Toropov, A.P. Toropova, S.E. Martyanov, E. Benfenati, G. Gini, D. Leszczynska, and J. Leszczynski, Comparison of SMILES and molecular graphs as the representation of the molecular structure for QSAR analysis for mutagenic potential of polyaromatic amine, Chemom. Intell. Lab. Syst. 109 (2011), pp. 94–100. doi:10.1016/j.chemolab.2011.07.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar