↓ Skip to main content

Large-Scale Prediction of Drug-Target Interaction: a Data-Centric Review

Overview of attention for article published in The AAPS Journal, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (65th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
patent
2 patents

Citations

dimensions_citation
40 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
102 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Large-Scale Prediction of Drug-Target Interaction: a Data-Centric Review
Published in
The AAPS Journal, June 2017
DOI 10.1208/s12248-017-0092-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tiejun Cheng, Ming Hao, Takako Takeda, Stephen H. Bryant, Yanli Wang

Abstract

The prediction of drug-target interactions (DTIs) is of extraordinary significance to modern drug discovery in terms of suggesting new drug candidates and repositioning old drugs. Despite technological advances, large-scale experimental determination of DTIs is still expensive and laborious. Effective and low-cost computational alternatives remain in strong need. Meanwhile, open-access resources have been rapidly growing with massive amount of bioactivity data becoming available, creating unprecedented opportunities for the development of novel in silico models for large-scale DTI prediction. In this work, we review the state-of-the-art computational approaches for identifying DTIs from a data-centric perspective: what the underlying data are and how they are utilized in each study. We also summarize popular public data resources and online tools for DTI prediction. It is found that various types of data were employed including properties of chemical structures, drug therapeutic effects and side effects, drug-target binding, drug-drug interactions, bioactivity data of drug molecules across multiple biological targets, and drug-induced gene expressions. More often, the heterogeneous data were integrated to offer better performance. However, challenges remain such as handling data imbalance, incorporating negative samples and quantitative bioactivity data, as well as maintaining cross-links among different data sources, which are essential for large-scale and automated information integration.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 102 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 102 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 19 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 18%
Student > Master 16 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 9 9%
Lecturer 7 7%
Other 12 12%
Unknown 21 21%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 21 21%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 10%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 10%
Chemistry 10 10%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 26 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,599,333
of 23,344,526 outputs
Outputs from The AAPS Journal
#364
of 1,304 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#105,373
of 318,370 outputs
Outputs of similar age from The AAPS Journal
#8
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,344,526 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,304 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.0. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 318,370 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.