PrePCI : A structure‐ and chemical similarity‐informed database of predicted protein compound interactions
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
We describe the Predicting Protein–Compound Interactions (PrePCI) database which comprises over 5 billion predicted interactions between 6.8 million chemical compounds and 19,797 human proteins. PrePCI relies on a proteome‐wide database of structural models based on both traditional modeling techniques and the AlphaFold Protein Structure Database. Sequence‐ and structural similarity‐based metrics are established between template proteins, T, in the Protein Data Bank that bind compounds, C, and query proteins in the model database, Q. When the metrics exceed threshold values, it is assumed that C also binds to Q with a likelihood ratio (LR) derived from machine learning. If the relationship is based on structural similarity, the LR is based on a scoring function that measures the extent to which C is compatible with the binding site of Q as described in the LT‐scanner algorithm. For every predicted complex derived in this way, chemical similarity based on the Tanimoto coefficient identifies other small molecules that may bind to Q. An overall LR for the binding of C to Q is obtained from Naive Bayesian statistics. The PrePCI database can be queried by entering a UniProt ID or gene name for a protein to obtain a list of compounds predicted to bind to it along with associated LRs. Alternatively, entering an identifier for the compound outputs a list of proteins it is predicted to bind. Specific applications of the database to lead discovery, elucidation of drug mechanism of action, and biological function annotation are described.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
UniProt: the Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023
The UniProt Consortium, Bateman, A., Martin, M.-J., Orchard, S., Magrane, M., Ahmad, S., Alpi, E., Bowler-Barnett, E. H., Britto, R., Bye-A-Jee, H., et al. (2023) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkac1052 · Cited by 7,210 · see citing works
Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2012) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm300687e · Cited by 2,412 · see citing works
Synthon-based ligand discovery in virtual libraries of over 11 billion compounds
Sadybekov, A. A., Sadybekov, A. V., Liu, Y., Iliopoulos-Tsoutsouvas, C., Huang, X.-P., Pickett, J., Houser, B., Patel, N., Tran, N. K., Tong, F., et al. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-04220-9 · Cited by 417 · cited 4× · see citing works
“Updated versions of the protein class datasets compiled by Yamanishi et al. (2008) and updated in Liu et al. (2022) were obtained from https://github.com/ intelligence-csd-auth-gr/DTI_MDMF2A/tree/main/ datasets_mv.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPerformance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening.
Wójcikowski, M., Ballester, P. J., & Siedlecki, P. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep46710 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
Zhou, H., Cao, H., & Skolnick, J. (2018) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00309 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
FRAGSITE: A Fragment-Based Approach for Virtual Ligand Screening
Zhou, H., Cao, H., & Skolnick, J. (2021) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01160 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Trudeau, S. J., Hwang, H., Mathur, D., Begum, K., Petrey, D., Murray, D., & Honig, B.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University Irving Medical Center (US)
- Schrodinger (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Murray, Diana
- Honig, Barry
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-03-16
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- e4594-e4594
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- PMC
- PMC10019447
- OpenAlex
- W4320494012
- Cited by
- 16
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 2.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (1s10od032433-01a1)
- National Cancer Institute (U54CA209997)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (S06GM008224, T32GM008224, T32GM145440, R35GM139585)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Keywords
- protein structure model, AlphaFold, structural similarity, sequence similarity, molecular similarity, Tanimoto coefficient, likelihood ratios, drug target prediction, lead compound identification, mechanism of action
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Bayes Theorem, Humans, Proteins, Databases, Protein, Databases, Chemical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review