Cited by 8Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

Docking-Informed Machine Learning for Kinome-wide Affinity Prediction

Open access
Schifferstein, Jordy, Bernatavicius, Andrius, Janssen, Antonius P.A.·2024·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

High Resolution Image Download MS PowerPoint Slide Kinase inhibitors are an important class of anticancer drugs, with 80 inhibitors clinically approved and >100 in active clinical testing. Most bind competitively in the ATP-binding site, leading to challenges with selectivity for a specific kinase, resulting in risks for toxicity and general off-target effects. Assessing the binding of an inhibitor for the entire kinome is experimentally possible but expensive. A reliable and interpretable computational prediction of kinase selectivity would greatly benefit the inhibitor discovery and optimization process. Here, we use machine learning on docked poses to address this need. To this end, we aggregated all known inhibitor-kinase affinities and generated the complete accompanying 3D interactome by docking all inhibitors to the respective high-quality X-ray structures. We then used this resource to train a neural network as a kinase-specific scoring function, which achieved an overall performance ( R 2 ) of 0.63–0.74 on unseen inhibitors across the kinome. The entire pipeline from molecule to 3D-based affinity prediction has been fully automated and wrapped in a freely available package. This has a graphical user interface that is tightly integrated with PyMOL to allow immediate adoption in the medicinal chemistry practice.

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.4c01260

Cites

5 of 5 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
Schifferstein, J., Bernatavicius, A., & Janssen, A. P. A.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Janssen, Antonius P.A.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2024-12-10
Volume
64
Issue
24
Pages
9196-9204
ISSN
  • 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-960X
OpenAlex
W4405222290
Cited by
8
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • Oncode Institute
  • Oncode Accelerator (NGFOP2201)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
kinase inhibitors, kinase selectivity, binding affinity prediction, inhibitor discovery, off-target toxicity, X-ray structure
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Binding Sites, Humans, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Protein Kinases, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Molecular Docking Simulation

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