Title | ||
---|---|---|
Identifying drug-pathway association pairs based on L2, 1-integrative penalized matrix decomposition. |
Abstract | ||
---|---|---|
Background: Traditional drug identification methods follow the "one drug-one target" thought. But those methods ignore the natural characters of human diseases. To overcome this limitation, many identification methods of drug-pathway association pairs have been developed, such as the integrative penalized matrix decomposition (iPaD) method. The iPaD method imposes the L-1-norm penalty on the regularization term. However, lasso-type penalties have an obvious disadvantage, that is, the sparsity produced by them is too dispersive. Results: Therefore, to improve the performance of the iPaD method, we propose a novel method named L-2,L-1-iPaD to identify paired drug-pathway associations. In the L-2,L-1-iPaD model, we use the L-2,L-1-norm penalty to replace the L-1-norm penalty since the L-2,L-1-norm penalty can produce row sparsity. Conclusions: By applying the L-2,L-1-iPaD method to the CCLE and NCI-60 datasets, we demonstrate that the performance of L-2,L-1-iPaD method is superior to existing methods. And the proposed method can achieve better enrichment in terms of discovering validated drug-pathway association pairs than the iPaD method by performing permutation test. The results on the two real datasets prove that our method is effective. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
---|---|---|
2017 | 10.1186/s12918-017-0480-7 | BMC SYSTEMS BIOLOGY |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
Drug discovery,Sparse method,Integrative penalized matrix decomposition,L-2,L-1-norm penalty | Biology,Matrix decomposition,Systems biology,Regularization (mathematics),Artificial intelligence,Bioinformatics,Resampling,Drug Pathway,Machine learning | Journal |
Volume | Issue | ISSN |
11 | SUPnan | 1752-0509 |
Citations | PageRank | References |
0 | 0.34 | 20 |
Authors | ||
6 |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
---|---|---|---|
Liu Jin-Xing | 1 | 40 | 16.11 |
Dong-Qin Wang | 2 | 0 | 0.34 |
Chun-hou Zheng | 3 | 732 | 71.79 |
Gao Ying-Lian | 4 | 29 | 18.73 |
Sha-sha Wu | 5 | 0 | 1.01 |
Junliang Shang | 6 | 42 | 14.78 |