Cited by 3Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

EGGNet, a Generalizable Geometric Deep Learning Framework for Protein Complex Pose Scoring

Open access

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Computational prediction of molecule-protein interactions has been key for developing new molecules to interact with a target protein for therapeutics development. Previous work includes two independent streams of approaches: (1) predicting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) between naturally occurring proteins and (2) predicting binding affinities between proteins and small-molecule ligands [also known as drug-target interaction (DTI)]. Studying the two problems in isolation has limited the ability of these computational models to generalize across the PPI and DTI tasks, both of which ultimately involve noncovalent interactions with a protein target. In this work, we developed Equivariant Graph of Graphs neural Network (EGGNet), a geometric deep learning (GDL) framework, for molecule-protein binding predictions that can handle three types of molecules for interacting with a target protein: (1) small molecules, (2) synthetic peptides, and (3) natural proteins. EGGNet leverages a graph of graphs (GoG) representation constructed from the molecular structures at atomic resolution and utilizes a multiresolution equivariant graph neural network to learn from such representations. In addition, EGGNet leverages the underlying biophysics and makes use of both atom- and residue-level interactions, which improve EGGNet's ability to rank candidate poses from blind docking. EGGNet achieves competitive performance on both a public protein-small-molecule binding affinity prediction task (80.2% top 1 success rate on CASF-2016) and a synthetic protein interface prediction task (88.4% area under the precision-recall curve). We envision that the proposed GDL framework can generalize to many other protein interaction prediction problems, such as binding site prediction and molecular docking, helping accelerate protein engineering and structure-based drug development.

Overview

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/acsomega.3c04889

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102548 · DOI · Paper page
  2. D’Agostino G., 2014, Networks of networks: the last frontier of complexity, 340, 10.1007/978-3-319-03518-5 · DOI
  3. Ni, J.; Tong, H.; Fan, W.; Zhang, X. Inside the atoms: ranking on a network of networks. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM SIGKDD international conference on Knowledge discovery and data mining , 2014; pp 1356–1365. · DOI
  4. 10.1186/s12859-020-3378-0 · DOI
  5. Wang, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Shah, N.; Derr, T. Imbalanced Graph Classification via Graph-of-Graph Neural Networks. In Proceedings of the 31st ACM International Conference on Information & Knowledge Management , 2022; pp 2067–2076. · DOI
  6. Wang, H.; Lian, D.; Zhang, Y.; Qin, L.; Lin, X. GoGNN: graph of graphs neural network for predicting structured entity interactions. In Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Conference on International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence , 2021; pp 1317–1323. · DOI
  7. 10.1039/D1SC06946B · DOI
  8. 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00650 · DOI
  9. 10.1039/C9CP06554G · DOI
  10. 10.1126/sciadv.abc5329 · DOI
  11. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009943 · DOI
  12. 10.1021/acscentsci.8b00507 · DOI
  13. Gilmer, J.; Schoenholz, S. S.; Riley, P. F.; Vinyals, O.; Dahl, G. E. Neural message passing for quantum chemistry. In International conference on machine learning , 2017; pp 1263–1272.
  14. Veličković, P.; Cucurull, G.; Casanova, A.; Romero, A.; Liò, P.; Bengio, Y. Graph Attention Networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018.
  15. Somnath V. R., 2021, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 34, 25244
  16. 10.1073/pnas.2016239118 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3095381 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1038/s41467-021-27396-0 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac551 · DOI · Paper page
  20. Ingraham J., 2019, Advances in neural information processing systems, 32
  21. Jing, B.; Eismann, S.; Suriana, P.; Townshend, R. J. L.; Dror, R. Learning from Protein Structure with Geometric Vector Perceptrons. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2021.
  22. 10.1021/ci100050t · DOI
  23. Edwards, C.; Lai, T.; Ros, K.; Honke, G.; Cho, K.; Ji, H. Translation between Molecules and Natural Language. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates , 2022; pp 375–413. · DOI
  24. 10.1038/s41598-022-10775-y · DOI
  25. 10.1021/jm030580l · DOI
  26. 10.1038/s41467-020-14301-4 · DOI
  27. 10.1186/s12900-014-0022-0 · DOI
  28. 10.1186/1471-2105-13-334 · DOI
  29. 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · DOI · Paper page
  31. 10.1038/nbt.3988 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac759 · DOI · Paper page
  33. Paszke A., 2019, Advances in neural information processing systems, 32
  34. Xu, K.; Hu, W.; Leskovec, J.; Jegelka, S. How Powerful are Graph Neural Networks? In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018.
  35. 10.1126/scisignal.aaa6711 · DOI
  36. 10.1038/s41467-021-25772-4 · DOI
  37. 10.1016/j.jmb.2007.05.022 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz437 · DOI
  39. 10.1186/s12859-018-2414-9 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Wang, Z., Brand, R., Adolf-Bryfogle, J., Grewal, J., Qi, Y., Combs, S. A., Golovach, N., Alford, R., Rangwala, H., & Clark, P. M.
Affiliations
  • Amazon (United States) (US)
  • Janssen Biotherapeutics, Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson & Johnson, Spring House, Titusville, New Jersey 08560-1504, United States
  • Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Wang, Zichen
  • Rangwala, Huzefa
  • Clark, Peter M.
Venue
ACS Omega
Published
2024-02-09
Volume
9
Issue
7
Pages
7471-7479
ISSN
2470-1343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4391676149
Cited by
3
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Omega (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
protein-protein interaction, drug-target interactions, binding affinity prediction, equivariant graph neural networks, molecular docking, protein interface prediction, structure-based drug design, protein engineering

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