↓ Skip to main content

The comparison of automated clustering algorithms for resampling representative conformer ensembles with RMSD matrix

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
10 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
32 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The comparison of automated clustering algorithms for resampling representative conformer ensembles with RMSD matrix
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, March 2017
DOI 10.1186/s13321-017-0208-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hyoungrae Kim, Cheongyun Jang, Dharmendra K. Yadav, Mi-hyun Kim

Abstract

The accuracy of any 3D-QSAR, Pharmacophore and 3D-similarity based chemometric target fishing models are highly dependent on a reasonable sample of active conformations. Since a number of diverse conformational sampling algorithm exist, which exhaustively generate enough conformers, however model building methods relies on explicit number of common conformers. In this work, we have attempted to make clustering algorithms, which could find reasonable number of representative conformer ensembles automatically with asymmetric dissimilarity matrix generated from openeye tool kit. RMSD was the important descriptor (variable) of each column of the N × N matrix considered as N variables describing the relationship (network) between the conformer (in a row) and the other N conformers. This approach used to evaluate the performance of the well-known clustering algorithms by comparison in terms of generating representative conformer ensembles and test them over different matrix transformation functions considering the stability. In the network, the representative conformer group could be resampled for four kinds of algorithms with implicit parameters. The directed dissimilarity matrix becomes the only input to the clustering algorithms. Dunn index, Davies-Bouldin index, Eta-squared values and omega-squared values were used to evaluate the clustering algorithms with respect to the compactness and the explanatory power. The evaluation includes the reduction (abstraction) rate of the data, correlation between the sizes of the population and the samples, the computational complexity and the memory usage as well. Every algorithm could find representative conformers automatically without any user intervention, and they reduced the data to 14-19% of the original values within 1.13 s per sample at the most. The clustering methods are simple and practical as they are fast and do not ask for any explicit parameters. RCDTC presented the maximum Dunn and omega-squared values of the four algorithms in addition to consistent reduction rate between the population size and the sample size. The performance of the clustering algorithms was consistent over different transformation functions. Moreover, the clustering method can also be applied to molecular dynamics sampling simulation results.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 10 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 32 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 32 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 31%
Student > Master 5 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Student > Bachelor 4 13%
Professor 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 6 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 11 34%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Engineering 3 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 7 22%
Unknown 5 16%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#6,281,772
of 24,903,209 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#486
of 934 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,155
of 314,309 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#13
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,903,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 74th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 934 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 314,309 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 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.