↓ Skip to main content

Badapple: promiscuity patterns from noisy evidence

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (89th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (80th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
7 X users
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
87 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
109 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
Badapple: promiscuity patterns from noisy evidence
Published in
Journal of Cheminformatics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13321-016-0137-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jeremy J. Yang, Oleg Ursu, Christopher A. Lipinski, Larry A. Sklar, Tudor I. Oprea, Cristian G. Bologa

Abstract

Bioassay data analysis continues to be an essential, routine, yet challenging task in modern drug discovery and chemical biology research. The challenge is to infer reliable knowledge from big and noisy data. Some aspects of this problem are general with solutions informed by existing and emerging data science best practices. Some aspects are domain specific, and rely on expertise in bioassay methodology and chemical biology. Testing compounds for biological activity requires complex and innovative methodology, producing results varying widely in accuracy, precision, and information content. Hit selection criteria involve optimizing such that the overall probability of success in a project is maximized, and resource-wasteful "false trails" are avoided. This "fail-early" approach is embraced both in pharmaceutical and academic drug discovery, since follow-up capacity is resource-limited. Thus, early identification of likely promiscuous compounds has practical value. Here we describe an algorithm for identifying likely promiscuous compounds via associated scaffolds which combines general and domain-specific features to assist and accelerate drug discovery informatics, called Badapple: bioassay-data associative promiscuity pattern learning engine. Results are described from an analysis using data from MLP assays via the BioAssay Research Database (BARD) http://bard.nih.gov. Specific examples are analyzed in the context of medicinal chemistry, to illustrate associations with mechanisms of promiscuity. Badapple has been developed at UNM, released and deployed for public use two ways: (1) BARD plugin, integrated into the public BARD REST API and BARD web client; and (2) public web app hosted at UNM. Badapple is a method for rapidly identifying likely promiscuous compounds via associated scaffolds. Badapple generates a score associated with a pragmatic, empirical definition of promiscuity, with the overall goal to identify "false trails" and streamline workflows. Unlike methods reliant on expert curation of chemical substructure patterns, Badapple is fully evidence-driven, automated, self-improving via integration of additional data, and focused on scaffolds. Badapple is robust with respect to noise and errors, and skeptical of scanty evidence.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 109 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Unknown 107 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 28 26%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 17%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 10 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 9 8%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 19 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Chemistry 31 28%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 10%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 6%
Other 16 15%
Unknown 25 23%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. 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 02 January 2023.
All research outputs
#1,957,203
of 23,477,147 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Cheminformatics
#179
of 863 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,515
of 340,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Cheminformatics
#3
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,477,147 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 91st percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 863 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 79% 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 340,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.