1. Krizhevsky, A., Sutskever, I. & Hinton, G. E. ImageNet Classification with Deep Convolutional Neural Networks. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 25, 1097–1105 (2012).
2. Duvenaud, D. et al. Convolutional networks on graphs for learning molecular fingerprints. https://arxiv.org/abs/1509.09292.
3. Wu, Z. et al. MoleculeNet: A benchmark for molecular machine learning. Chem. Sci. 9, 513–530 (2018).
4. DeepChem. https://github.com/deepchem/deepchem.
5. Altae-Tran, H., Ramsundar, B., Pappu, A. S. & Pande, V. Low Data Drug Discovery with One-Shot Learning. ACS Cent. Sci. 3, 283–293 (2017).
6. Cai, C. et al. Deep Learning-Based Prediction of Drug-Induced Cardiotoxicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 1073–1084 (2019).
7. Cheng, W. & Ng, C. A. Using Machine Learning to Classify Bioactivity for 3486 Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs) from the OECD List. Environ. Sci. & Technol. 53, 13970–13980 (2019).
8. Rodríguez-Pérez, R. & Bajorath, J. Prediction of Compound Profiling Matrices, Part II: Relative Performance of Multitask Deep Learning and Random Forest Classification on the Basis of Varying Amounts of Training Data. ACS Omega 3, 12033–12040 (2018).
9. Miyazaki, Y., Ono, N., Huang, M., Altaf-Ul-Amin, M. & Kanaya, S. Comprehensive Exploration of Target-specific Ligands Using a Graph Convolution Neural Network. Mol. Inform. 39, 1900095 (2020).
10. Mayr, A. et al. Large-scale comparison of machine learning methods for drug target prediction on ChEMBL. Chem. Sci. 9, 5441–5451 (2018).
11. Bosc, N. et al. Large scale comparison of QSAR and conformal prediction methods and their applications in drug discovery. J. Cheminform. 11, 4 (2019).
12. Unterthiner, T. et al. Deep learning as an opportunity in virtual screening. in Proceedings of the deep learning workshop at NIPS vol. 27 1–9 (2014).
13. Gomes, J., Ramsundar, B., Feinberg, E. N. & Pande, V. S. Atomic Convolutional Networks for Predicting Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity. http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10603 (2017).
14. Karimi, M., Wu, D., Wang, Z. & Shen, Y. DeepAffinity: interpretable deep learning of compound–protein affinity through unified recurrent and convolutional neural networks. Bioinformatics 35, 3329–3338 (2019).
15. Öztürk, H., Özgür, A. & Ozkirimli, E. DeepDTA: Deep drug-target binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics 34, i821–i829 (2018).
16. Wang, X. et al. Dipeptide Frequency of Word Frequency and Graph Convolutional Networks for DTA Prediction. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 8, 267 (2020).
17. Liu, P., Li, H., Li, S. & Leung, K.-S. Improving prediction of phenotypic drug response on cancer cell lines using deep convolutional network. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 1–14 (2019).
18. Whitehead T. M., Irwin, B. W. J., Hunt, P., Segall, M. D. & Conduit, G. J. Imputation of Assay Bioactivity Data Using Deep Learning. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 1197–1204 (2019).
19. Feinberg, E. N. et al. PotentialNet for Molecular Property Prediction. ACS Cent. Sci. 4, 1520–1530 (2018).
20. Karlov, D. S., Sosnin, S., Fedorov, M. V. & Popov, P. GraphDelta: MPNN Scoring Function for the Affinity Prediction of Protein-Ligand Complexes. ACS Omega 5, 5150–5159 (2020).
21. Wu, J. et al. Precise modelling and interpretation of bioactivities of ligands targeting G protein-coupled receptors. Bioinformatics 35, i324–i332 (2019).
22. Wang, X. et al. Molecule Property Prediction Based on Spatial Graph Embedding. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 3817–3828 (2019).
23. Lenselink, E. B. et al. Beyond the hype: deep neural networks outperform established methods using a ChEMBL bioactivity benchmark set. J. Cheminform. 9, 45 (2017).
24. ChemAxon. https://chemaxon.com/.
25. RDKit. https://www.rdkit.org/.
26. Jiménez, J. & Ginebra, J. pyGPGO: Bayesian Optimization for Python. J. Open Source Softw. 2, 431 (2017).
27. Xu, Y., Pei, J. & Lai, L. Deep Learning Based Regression and Multiclass Models for Acute Oral Toxicity Prediction with Automatic Chemical Feature Extraction. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57, 2672–2685 (2017).
28. Yang, K. et al. Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 3370–3388 (2019).
29. Kwon, S., Bae, H., Jo, J. & Yoon, S. Comprehensive ensemble in QSAR prediction for drug discovery. BMC Bioinformatics 20, 521 (2019).
30. Bemis, G. W. & Murcko, M. A. The properties of known drugs. 1. Molecular frameworks. J. Med. Chem. 39, 2887–2893 (1996).
31. Godden, J. W. & Bajorath, J. Differential Shannon Entropy as a Sensitive Measure of Differences in Database Variability of Molecular Descriptors. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 41, 1060–1066 (2001).
32. Schneider, P. & Schneider, G. Privileged Structures Revisited. Angew. Chemie Int. Ed. 56, 7971–7974 (2017).
33. Asano, M. et al. SKF-10047, a prototype Sigma-1 receptor agonist, augmented the membrane trafficking and uptake activity of the serotonin transporter and its C-terminus-deleted mutant via a Sigma-1 receptor-independent mechanism. J. Pharmacol. Sci. 139, 29–36 (2019).
34. Ramamoorthy, S. et al. Antidepressant- and cocaine-sensitive human serotonin transporter: Molecular cloning, expression, and chromosomal localization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 90, 2542–2546 (1993).
35. Nishitani, N. et al. Manipulation of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons modulates active coping to inescapable stress and anxiety-related behaviors in mice and rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 44, 721–732 (2019).
36. Mervin, L. H. et al. Target prediction utilising negative bioactivity data covering large chemical space. J Cheminform 7, 51 (2015).
37. Romeo, G. et al. New pyrimido[5,4-b]indoles as ligands for α1-adrenoceptor subtypes. J. Med. Chem. 46, 2877–2894 (2003).
38. Koutsoukas, A., Monaghan, K. J., Li, X. & Huan, J. Deep-learning: Investigating deep neural networks hyper-parameters and comparison of performance to shallow methods for modeling bioactivity data. J. Cheminform. 9, 42 (2017).
39. Willmott, C. J. & Matsuura, K. Advantages of the mean absolute error (MAE) over the root mean square error (RMSE) in assessing average model performance. Clim. Res. 30, 79–82 (2005).
40. Chai, T. & Draxler, R. R. Root mean square error (RMSE) or mean absolute error (MAE)? -Arguments against avoiding RMSE in the literature. Geosci. Model Dev. 7, 1247–1250 (2014).
41. Li, Q., Han, Z. & Wu, X.-M. Deeper Insights into Graph Convolutional Networks for Semi-Supervised Learning. in 32nd AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, AAAI 2018 3538–3545 (2018).
42. Goh, G. B., Siegel, C., Vishnu, A., Hodas, N. O. & Baker, N. Chemception: A Deep Neural Network with Minimal Chemistry Knowledge Matches the Performance of Expert-developed QSAR/QSPR Models. https://arxiv.org/abs/1706.06689.
43. Cortés-Ciriano, I. & Bender, A. KekuleScope: prediction of cancer cell line sensitivity and compound potency using convolutional neural networks trained on compound images. J. Cheminform. 11, 41 (2019).
44. Uesawa, Y. Quantitative structure–activity relationship analysis using deep learning based on a novel molecular image input technique. Bioorganic Med. Chem. Lett. 28, 3400–3403 (2018).
45. Hirohara, M., Saito, Y., Koda, Y., Sato, K. & Sakakibara, Y. Convolutional neural network based on SMILES representation of compounds for detecting chemical motif. BMC Bioinformatics 19, 526 (2018).
46. Nidhi, Glick, M., Davies, J. W. & Jenkins, J. L. Prediction of Biological Targets for Compounds Using Multiple-Category Bayesian Models Trained on Chemogenomics Databases. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 46, 1124–1133 (2006).
47. Shang, J. et al. Comparative analyses of structural features and scaffold diversity for purchasable compound libraries. J. Cheminform. 9, 25 (2017).
48. Li, Y., Zhang, L. & Liu, Z. Multi-objective de novo drug design with conditional graph generative model. J. Cheminform. 10, 33 (2018).
49. Paricharak, S. et al. Data-driven approaches used for compound library design, hit triage and bioactivity modeling in high-throughput screening. Brief. Bioinform. 19, 277–285 (2018).
50. Zhang, Y. & Lee, A. A. Bayesian semi-supervised learning for uncertainty- calibrated prediction of molecular properties and active learning. Chem. Sci. 10, 8154–8163 (2019).
51. Robinson, M. C., Glen, R. C. & Lee, A. A. Validating the validation: reanalyzing a large-scale comparison of deep learning and machine learning models for bioactivity prediction. J. Comput. Aided. Mol. Des. 34, 717–730 (2020).
52. Tatsumi, M., Groshan, K., Blakely, R. D. & Richelson, E. Pharmacological profile of antidepressants and related compounds at human monoamine transporters. Eur. J. Pharmacol. 340, 249–258 (1997).
53. Tarasova, O. A. et al. QSAR Modeling Using Large-Scale Databases: Case Study for HIV-1 Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 1388–1399 (2015).
54. 薬食安発0328007. https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000143457.pdf.
55. Sultana, J., Cutroneo, P. & Trifirò, G. Clinical and economic burden of adverse drug reactions. J. Pharmacol. Pharmacother. 4, S73 (2013).
56. Hwang, T. J. et al. Failure of investigational drugs in late-stage clinical development and publication of trial results. JAMA Intern. Med. 176, 1826–1833 (2016).
57. Bowes, J. et al. Reducing safety-related drug attrition: The use of in vitro pharmacological profiling. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 11, 909–922 (2012).
58. Siramshetty, V. B. et al. WITHDRAWN-a resource for withdrawn and discontinued drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1080–D1086 (2016).
59. Amouzadeh, H. R. et al. Clinical Implications and Translation of an Off-Target Pharmacology Profiling Hit: Adenosine Uptake Inhibition In Vitro. Transl. Oncol. 12, 1296–1304 (2019).
60. FAERS. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/surveillance/questions-and-answers-fdas- adverse-event-reporting-system-faers.
61. 副作用が疑われる症例報告に関する情報 | 独立行政法人 医薬品医療機器総合機構. https://www.pmda.go.jp/safety/info-services/drugs/adr-info/suspected- adr/0005.html.
62. Zhou, Y. et al. Hypoglycemia associated with direct-acting anti-hepatitis C virus drugs: An epidemiologic surveillance study of the FDA adverse event reporting system (FAERS). Clin. Endocrinol. (Oxf). (2021) doi:10.1111/CEN.14660.
63. Anastopoulos, I. N., Herczeg, C. K., Davis, K. N. & Dixit, A. C. Multi-Drug Featurization and Deep Learning Improve Patient-Specific Predictions of Adverse Events. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 18, 2600 (2021).
64. Nagashima, T., Shirakawa, H., Nakagawa, T. & Kaneko, S. Prevention of antipsychotic-induced hyperglycaemia by vitamin D: a data mining prediction followed by experimental exploration of the molecular mechanism. Sci. Rep. 6, 26375 (2016).
65. Nagaoka, K. et al. Striatal TRPV1 activation by acetaminophen ameliorates dopamine D2 receptor antagonist–induced orofacial dyskinesia. JCI Insight 6, e145632 (2021).
66. Kuhn, M., Letunic, I., Jensen, L. J. & Bork, P. The SIDER database of drugs and side effects. Nucleic Acids Res. 44, D1075–D1079 (2016).
67. Wishart, D. S. et al. DrugBank 5.0: A major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 46, D1074–D1082 (2018).
68. Günther, S. et al. SuperTarget and Matador: resources for exploring drug-target relationships. Nucleic Acids Res. 36, D919–D922 (2008).
69. Wang, C. S. et al. Detecting Potential Adverse Drug Reactions Using a Deep Neural Network Model. J. Med. Internet Res. 21, e11016 (2019).
70. Mizutani, S., Pauwels, E., Stoven, V., Goto, S. & Yamanishi, Y. Relating drug- protein interaction network with drug side effects. Bioinformatics 28, i522–i528 (2012).
71. Ietswaart, R. et al. Machine learning guided association of adverse drug reactions with in vitro target-based pharmacology. EBioMedicine 57, 102837 (2020).
72. Gaulton, A. et al. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D945– D954 (2017).
73. メディカルデータベース株式会社. https://www.medicaldb.co.jp/.
74. Kanehisa, M., Furumichi, M., Tanabe, M., Sato, Y. & Morishima, K. KEGG: new perspectives on genomes, pathways, diseases and drugs. Nucleic Acids Res. 45, D353–D361 (2017).
75. Chen, T. & Guestrin, C. XGBoost: A scalable tree boosting system. in Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 785–794 (2016).
76. Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G. G. & Lee, S.-I. Consistent Individualized Feature Attribution for Tree Ensembles. http://arxiv.org/abs/1802.03888 (2018).
77. Lundberg, S. M. et al. From Local Explanations to Global Understanding with Explainable AI for Trees. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2, 56–67 (2020).
78. Kojima, T. et al. High risk of adverse drug reactions in elderly patients taking six or more drugs: Analysis of inpatient database. Geriatr. Gerontol. Int. 12, 761–762 (2012).
79. Masnoon, N., Shakib, S., Kalisch-Ellett, L. & Caughey, G. E. What is polypharmacy? A systematic review of definitions. BMC Geriatr. 17, 230 (2017).
80. Zhu, A. et al. A Super-combo-drug test (SupCD-T) to Detect Adverse Drug Events and Drug Interactions from Electronic Health Records in the Era of Polypharmacy. Stat. Med. 39, 1458–1472 (2020).
81. Galeano, D., Li, S., Gerstein, M. & Paccanaro, A. Predicting the frequencies of drug side effects. Nat. Commun. 11, 4575 (2020).
82. Chawla, N. V., Bowyer, K. W., Hall, L. O. & Kegelmeyer, W. P. SMOTE: Synthetic Minority Over-sampling Technique. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 16, 321–357 (2002).
83. Tomek, I. Two Modifications of CNN. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Commun. 6, 769– 772 (1976).
84. Lupoglazoff, J. M. et al. Long QT syndrome in neonates: conduction disorders associated with HERG mutations and sinus bradycardia with KCNQ1 mutations. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 43, 826–830 (2004).
85. Sanguinetti, C. M. & Tristani-Firouzi, M. hERG potassium channels and cardiac arrhythm. Nature 440, 463–469 (2006).
86. Wang, N., Orr-Urtreger, A., Chapman, J., Rabinowitz, R. & Korczyn, A. D. Deficiency of nicotinic acetylcholine receptor beta 4 subunit causes autonomic cardiac and intestinal dysfunction. Mol. Pharmacol. 63, 574–580 (2003).
87. Liu, V. W. T. & Huang, P. L. Cardiovascular roles of nitric oxide: A review of insights from nitric oxide synthase gene disrupted mice. Cardiovasc. Res. 77, 19– 29 (2008).
88. Monahan, B. P., Ferguson, C. L., Killeavy, E. S., Lloyd, B. K., Troy, J., & Cantilena, L. R. Torsades de Pointes Occurring in Association With Terfenadine Use. JAMA 264, 2788–2790 (1990).
89. Roy, M. L., Dumaine, R. & Brown, A. M. HERG, a Primary Human Ventricular Target of the Nonsedating Antihistamine Terfenadine. Circulation 94, 817–823 (1996).
90. Svenningsson, P. et al. Eltoprazine counteracts l-DOPA-induced dyskinesias in Parkinson’s disease: a dose-finding study. Brain 138, 963–973 (2015).
91. Boom, M. et al. Non-analgesic effects of opioids: opioid-induced respiratory depression. Curr. Pharm. Des. 18, 5994–6004 (2012).
92. Ashok, A. H., Mizuno, Y., Volkow, N. D. & Howes, O. D. Association of Stimulant Use With Dopaminergic Alterations in Users of Cocaine, Amphetamine, or Methamphetamine: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry 74, 511–519 (2017).
93. Sweidan, A. J. et al. Coagulopathy reversal in intracerebral haemorrhage. Stroke Vasc. Neurol. 5, 29–33 (2020).
94. Nørgård, B. et al. COX-2-selective inhibitors and the risk of upper gastrointestinal bleeding in high-risk patients with previous gastrointestinal diseases: a population-based case-control study. Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 19, 817–825 (2004).
95. Roden, D. M. Long-QT syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 358, 169–176 (2008).
96. Huang, P. L. et al. Hypertension in mice lacking the gene for endothelial nitric oxide synthase. Nature 377, 239–242 (1995).
97. Cowart, M. et al. Nitroaromatic Amino Acids as Inhibitors of Neuronal Nitric Oxide Synthase. J. Med. Chem. 41, 2636–2642 (1998).
98. PMDA. 薬剤惹起性うつ病. https://www.pmda.go.jp/files/000144134.pdf.
99. Jeong, H. E., Jeon, H. L., Oh, I. S., Kim, W. J. & Shin, J. Y. Risk of mortality associated with concomitant antidepressant and benzodiazepine therapy among patients with depression: a population-based cohort study. BMC Med. 18, 387 (2020).
100. Jochems, J. et al. Antidepressant-like properties of novel HDAC6-selective inhibitors with improved brain bioavailability. Neuropsychopharmacology 39, 389–400 (2014).
101. De Rossi, P. et al. A critical role for VEGF and VEGFR2 in NMDA receptor synaptic function and fear-related behavior. Mol. Psychiatry 21, 1768–1780 (2016).
102. Dong, C. et al. Psychedelic-inspired drug discovery using an engineered biosensor. Cell 184, 2779–2792 (2021).
103. Nishitani, N. et al. Raphe AMPA receptors and nicotinic acetylcholine receptors mediate ketamine-induced serotonin release in the rat prefrontal cortex. Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 17, 1321–1326 (2014).
104. Introductory Guide for Standardised MedDRA Queries (SMQs) Version 22.1. (2019).
105. Kitaoka, S. et al. Prostaglandin E2 acts on EP1 receptor and amplifies both dopamine D1 and D2 receptor signaling in the striatum. J. Neurosci. 27, 12900– 12907 (2007).
106. Swanson, J. M. et al. Etiologic subtypes of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: Brain imaging, molecular genetic and environmental factors and the dopamine hypothesis. Neuropsychol. Rev. 17, 39–59 (2007).
107. Dohn, M. R. et al. The Gain-of-Function Integrin β3 Pro33 Variant Alters the Serotonin System in the Mouse Brain. J. Neurosci. 37, 11271–11284 (2017).
108. Pan, H., Dohn, M. R., Kingston, R. & Carneiro, A. M. D. Integrin αvβ3 function influences citalopram immobility behavior in the tail suspension test. Front. Neurosci. 13, 70 (2019).
109. Hornsby, A. K. E. et al. Unacylated-Ghrelin Impairs Hippocampal Neurogenesis and Memory in Mice and Is Altered in Parkinson’s Dementia in Humans. Cell reports. Med. 1, 100120 (2020).
110. Diaz-Otero, J. M. et al. Transient receptor potential vanilloid 4 channels are important regulators of parenchymal arteriole dilation and cognitive function. Microcirculation 26, e12535 (2019).
111. Cheung, M. et al. Discovery of GSK2193874: An Orally Active, Potent, and Selective Blocker of Transient Receptor Potential Vanilloid 4. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 8, 549–554 (2017).
論文の公開元へ
