From Proteins to Ligands: Decoding Deep Learning Methods for Binding Affinity Prediction
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Accurate in silico prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity is important in the early stages of drug discovery. Deep learning-based methods exist but have yet to overtake more conventional methods such as giga-docking largely due to their lack of generalizability. To improve generalizability, we need to understand what these models learn from input protein and ligand data. We systematically investigated a sequence-based deep learning framework to assess the impact of protein and ligand encodings on predicting binding affinities for commonly used kinase data sets. The role of proteins is studied using convolutional neural network-based encodings obtained from sequences and graph neural network-based encodings enriched with structural information from contact maps. Ligand-based encodings are generated from graph-neural networks. We test different ligand perturbations by randomizing node and edge properties. For proteins, we make use of 3 different protein contact generation methods (AlphaFold2, Pconsc4, and ESM-1b) and compare these with a random control. Our investigation shows that protein encodings do not substantially impact the binding predictions, with no statistically significant difference in binding affinity for KIBA in the investigated metrics (concordance index, Pearson's R Spearman's Rank, and RMSE). Significant differences are seen for ligand encodings with random ligands and random ligand node properties, suggesting a much bigger reliance on ligand data for the learning tasks. Using different ways to combine protein and ligand encodings did not show a significant change in performance.
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
U-Net: Convolutional Networks for Biomedical Image Segmentation
Ronneberger, O., Fischer, P., & Brox, T. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24574-4_28 · Cited by 99,404 · see citing works
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
Chicco, D., & Jurman, G. (2020) · BMC Genomics · doi:10.1186/s12864-019-6413-7 · Cited by 6,143 · cited 1× · see citing works
“To evaluate the performance of contact map prediction methods, we used the F1 score, Matthews’ correlation coefficient (MCC), 47 and precision metrics.”
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity
Davis, M. I., Hunt, J. P., Herrgard, S., Ciceri, P., Wodicka, L. M., Pallares, G., Hocker, M., Treiber, D. K., & Zarrinkar, P. P. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1990 · Cited by 2,409 · see citing works
Transformer protein language models are unsupervised structure learners
Rao, R., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Ovchinnikov, S., & Rives, A. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.12.15.422761 · Cited by 341 · see citing works
Modeling the expansion of virtual screening libraries
Lyu, J., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2023) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/s41589-022-01234-w · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Gorantla, R., Kubincová, A., Weiße, A. Y., & Mey, A. S. J. S.
- Affiliations
- University of Edinburgh (GB)
- Exscientia, Schrödinger Building, Oxford, OX4 4GE, U.K.
- Corresponding author
- Mey, Antonia S. J. S.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2023-11-20
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 2496-2507
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- PMC
- PMC11005465
- OpenAlex
- W4388820090
- Cited by
- 24
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8
- FWCI
- 3.44
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- UK Research and Innovation (EP/S02431X/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Keywords
- protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, deep learning, kinase inhibitors, protein contact maps, graph neural networks, convolutional neural networks, AlphaFold2, model generalization, KIBA
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Ligands, Protein Binding, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer
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