Cited by 24Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

From Proteins to Ligands: Decoding Deep Learning Methods for Binding Affinity Prediction

Open access
Gorantla, Rohan, Kubincová, Alžbeta, Weiße, Andrea Y., Mey, Antonia S. J. S.·2024·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Published 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01208

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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
Published
2023-11-20
Volume
64
Issue
7
Pages
2496-2507
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
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
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