Formatting biological big data for modern machine learning in drug discovery
Abstract
Biological data is accumulating at an unprecedented rate, escalating the role of data‐driven methods in computational drug discovery. This scenario is favored by recent advances in machine learning algorithms, which are optimized for huge datasets and consistently beat the predictive performance of previous art, rapidly approaching human expert reasoning. The urge to couple biological data to cutting‐edge machine learning has spurred developments in data integration and knowledge representation, especially in the form of heterogeneous, multiplex and semantically‐rich biological networks. Today, thanks to the propitious rise in knowledge embedding techniques, these large and complex biological networks can be converted to a vector format that suits the majority of machine learning implementations. Here, we explain why this can be particularly transformative for drug discovery where, for decades, customary chemoinformatics methods have employed vector descriptors of compound structures as the standard input of their prediction tasks. A common vector format to represent biology and chemistry may push biological information into most of the existing steps of the drug discovery pipeline, boosting the accuracy of predictions and uncovering connections between small molecules and other biological entities such as targets or diseases. This article is categorized under: Computer and Information Science > Databases and Expert Systems Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
This caveat is common to other machine-learning applications where embedded representations of entities are favored over sparser, more explicit ones.
“This caveat is common to other machine-learning applications (e.g., natural language processing) where embedded representations of entities are favored over sparser, more explicit ones37.”
From Bioactivity descriptors for uncharacterized chemical compounds (2021) · cites this paper as [37]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 158 · Cited by 25
- Authors
- Duran‐Frigola, M., Fernández‐Torras, A., Bertoni, M., & Aloy, P.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Research in Biomedicine (ES)
- Institució Catalana de Recerca i Estudis Avançats (ES)
- Corresponding author
- Duran‐Frigola, Miquel
- Aloy, Patrick
- Venue
- WIREs Computational Molecular Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2018-12-27
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1759-0876 (ISSN-L)
- 1759-0884
- OpenAlex
- W2907916870
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 158
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
- FWCI
- 2.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Molecular Science (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- H2020 European Research Council (SysPharmAD: 614944)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Graph Neural Networks
- Keywords
- knowledge embedding, biological networks, cheminformatics, drug discovery, data integration, knowledge representation
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