[1] Comparison of Compound-to-Target Relationships in Chemogenomic and Drug Databases Aprill 2012 update: FYI these two blog posts are on the same theme Chris Southan ChrisDS Consulting, Göteborg, Sweden, Presented to the NCBI PubChem team on 11 April. the BioIT World Chemogenomics and Toxicogenomics Workshop on 12 April Boston, USA, and as a shorter version, the ChEMBL users meeting at the EBI, 27 may 2011 http://cdsouthan.blogspot.se/2012/01/our-human-beta-lactamas e-is-not_09.html http://cdsouthan.blogspot.se/2011/08/compound-to-target-mapp ings-part-i.html
37
Embed
Comparison of Compounds-to-targets between Databases
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
[1]
Comparison of Compound-to-Target Relationships in Chemogenomic and
Drug Databases
Aprill 2012 update: FYI these two blog posts are on the same theme
Chris Southan
ChrisDS Consulting, Göteborg, Sweden,
Presented to the NCBI PubChem team on 11 April. the BioIT World Chemogenomics and Toxicogenomics Workshop on 12 April Boston, USA, and
as a shorter version, the ChEMBL users meeting at the EBI, 27 may 2011
• I profoundly appreciate the efforts of those who develop, manage and maintain public resources specified here and many others I enjoy acessing
• I have some history in evaluating the utility, exploitation and content quality of both bioinformatics and cheminformatics databases. I thus enjoy the dual roles (roughly in equal parts) of both fan and critic
• All databases have imperfections. This presentation investigates a selection of these but critical analysis should not be missinterpreted as disparaging either the quality of primary sources or the work of curators and database teams
[3]
Outline
• Mapping concepts sources and challenges• Extremes of the distribution• Atorvastatin, drug-to-targets • Hmg-CoA reductase target-to-drugs• Equivocal mapping examples• Exploring data intersects• Complex targets• Conclusions and outlook
[4]
Activity-to-compound-to-protein Mapping:Capturing Relationships Between four Concepts
“for small molecules that suppress the Amyloid Precursor Protein (APP) translation by binding to the 5'Untranslated Region of the APP mRNA
[30]
Proteasome: Target Descriptions and Cross-screens for Bortzemib
[31]
PubChem Compound Intersects:Primary Drug Targets with Screening data
[32]
Mycophenolic acid
[33]
Mycophenolic acid and Prodrug: Complex mappings
• Primary Target human IMPDH2
• IMPDH1 ?
• IMPDH2 hamster
• IMPDH2 Tritrichomonas
• myfortic is an enteric-coated formulation of MPA in a delayed-release tablet.
[34]
Conclusions
• Compared to what we had even a few years ago, let alone in LBPC (life-before-PubChem) these compound-to-protein sources are fantastic
• However, most things that could go wrong have• We don’t often see QC statistics • Data coverage is patchy, ad hoc and can be circular• If you operate on these data at large scale you have no choice
but to ”trust and filter” • If detailed realationships are important you need to ”verify and
judge” back to the primary source • You can only really do this if you have at least some in vitro
background rather than just in silico
[35]
Wouldn’t it be nice if we had ....
• Interpreted mapping distribution statisitcs for each database • Details about extraction triages, curation rules and parsing logic• Harmonisation of mapping rules and cross-comparison of content• Clear declarations and statistics of circularity between databases• Curator judgments overuling document primacy• Consolidated and extended Swiss-Prot cross-references• Assay and target ontologies (Pistoia ? Open Phacts ?)• “Standardization of Enzyme Data” (STRENDA,
http://www.beilstein-institut.de/en/projekte/strenda/) • “Minimum Information About a Bioactive Entity” (MIABE,