Cited by 683Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

Deep learning for molecular design—a review of the state of the art

Open access
Elton, Daniel C., Boukouvalas, Zois, Fuge, Mark D., Chung, Peter W.·2019·Molecular Systems Design & Engineering

Abstract

We review a recent groundswell of work which uses deep learning techniques to generate and optimize molecules.

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 · 10.1039/c9me00039a

Cites

172 of 172 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

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?

  • GNNs are commonly used to generate protein representations from chemical and geometric features to predict protein pocket-ligand and protein-protein interaction sites, intra- and inter-molecular energies, binding affinities, complex quality measures, and interface residues.

    “GNNs (as described in Section 4.1) are commonly used to generate representations of proteins based on chemical (e.g., free electrons’ and protons donors’ locations) and geometric (e.g., distance-dependent curvature) features to predict protein pocket-ligand and protein-protein interactions sites [116]; intra- and inter-molecule residue contact graphs to predict intra- and inter-molecular energies,”

    From Graph representation learning in biomedicine and healthcare (2022) · cites this paper as [111]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 23

  1. 6 Ricardo Macarron, Martyn N. Banks, Dejan Bojanic, David J. Burns, Dragan A. Cirovic, Tina Garyantes, Darren V. S. Green, Robert P. Hertzberg, William P. Janzen, Jeff W. Paslay, Ulrich Schopfer, and G. Sitta Sittampalam. Impact of highthroughput screening in biomedical research. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery , 10(3):188-195, mar 2011.
  2. 21 D. P Kingma and M. Welling. Auto-Encoding Variational Bayes. arXiv e-prints: 1312.6114 , December 2013. · arXiv
  3. 49 Nicola De Cao and Thomas Kipf. MolGAN: An implicit generative model for small molecular graphs. ICML 2018 workshop on Theoretical Foundations and Applications of Deep Generative Models , 2018.
  4. 55 Robin Winter, Floriane Montanari, Frank Noé, and DjorkArné Clevert. Learning continuous and data-driven molecular descriptors by translating equivalent chemical representations. Chemical Science , 10(6):1692-1701, 2019.
  5. 65 Z. Zhou, S. Kearnes, L. Li, R. N. Zare, and P. Riley. Optimization of Molecules via Deep Reinforcement Learning. arXiv e-prints:1810.08678 , October 2018. · arXiv
  6. 91 M. J. Kusner, B. Paige, and J. M. Hernández-Lobato. Grammar Variational Autoencoder. arXiv e-prints:1703.01925 , March 2017. · arXiv
  7. 120 Ian Goodfellow, Yoshua Bengio, and Aaron Courville. Deep Learning . MIT Press, 2016. http://www. deeplearningbook.org .
  8. 122 Kyunghyun Cho, Bart van Merrienboer, Caglar Gulcehre, Dzmitry Bahdanau, Fethi Bougares, Holger Schwenk, and Yoshua Bengio. Learning phrase representations using rnn encoder-decoder for statistical machine translation. In Pro- ceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP) , pages 1724-1734. Association for Computational Linguistics, 2014.
  9. 126 F. Huszár. How (not) to Train your Generative Model: Scheduled Sampling, Likelihood, Adversary? arXiv eprints:1511.05101 , November 2015. · arXiv
  10. 133 Ruslan Salakhutdinov and Geoffrey Hinton. Deep Boltzmann machines. In David van Dyk and Max Welling, editors, Proceedings of the Twelth International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics , volume 5 of Proceedings of Machine Learning Research , pages 448-455, Hilton Clearwater Beach Resort, Clearwater Beach, Florida USA, 16-18 Apr 2009. PMLR.
  11. 134 P. Mehta, M. Bukov, C.-H. Wang, A. G. R. Day, C. Richardson, C. K. Fisher, and D. J. Schwab. A high-bias, lowvariance introduction to Machine Learning for physicists. arXiv e-prints:1803.08823 , March 2018. · arXiv
  12. 136 Alireza Makhzani, Jonathon Shlens, Navdeep Jaitly, and Ian Goodfellow. Adversarial autoencoders. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2016.
  13. 139 Mario Lucic, Karol Kurach, Marcin Michalski, Sylvain Gelly, and Olivier Bousquet. Are GANs Created Equal? A LargeScale Study. arXiv e-prints:1711.10337 , November 2017. · arXiv
  14. 140 M. Arjovsky, S. Chintala, and L. Bottou. Wasserstein GAN. arXiv e-prints: 1701.07875 , January 2017. · arXiv
  15. 144 A. Graves, G. Wayne, and I. Danihelka. Neural Turing Machines. arXiv e-prints: 1807.06156 , October 2014. · arXiv
  16. 149 L. Theis, A. van den Oord, and M. Bethge. A note on the evaluation of generative models. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2016.
  17. 153 Daniil Polykovskiy, Alexander Zhebrak, Benjamin SanchezLengeling, Sergey Golovanov, Oktai Tatanov, Stanislav Belyaev, Rauf Kurbanov, Aleksey Artamonov, Vladimir Aladinskiy, Mark Veselov, Artur Kadurin, Sergey Nikolenko, Alan Aspuru-Guzik, and Alex Zhavoronkov. Molecular Sets (MOSES): A Benchmarking Platform for Molecular Generation Models. arXiv e-prints:: arXiv:1811.12823 , November 2018. · arXiv
  18. 156 Daniel Jiwoong Im, Alllan He Ma, Graham W. Taylor, and Kristin Branson. Quantitatively evaluating GANs with divergences proposed for training. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2018.
  19. 160 N. Yoshikawa, K. Terayama, T. Honma, K. Oono, and K. Tsuda. Population-based de novo molecule generation, using grammatical evolution. arXiv e-prints:1804.02134 , April 2018. · arXiv
  20. 164 Alec Radford, Luke Metz, and Soumith Chintala. Unsupervised representation learning with deep convolutional generative adversarial networks. In International Conference on Learning Representations , 2016.
  21. 184 A. Nouira, N. Sokolovska, and J.-C. Crivello. CrystalGAN: Learning to Discover Crystallographic Structures with Generative Adversarial Networks. arXiv e-prints: 1810.11203 , October 2018. · arXiv
  22. 186 Rahul Singh, Viraj Shah, Balaji Pokuri, Soumik Sarkar, Baskar Ganapathysubramanian, and Chinmay Hegde. Physics-aware Deep Generative Models for Creating Synthetic Microstructures. arXiv e-prints:1811.09669 , November 2018. · arXiv
  23. Discovery , 14(1):1-4, nov 2018.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Elton, D. C., Boukouvalas, Z., Fuge, M. D., & Chung, P. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Maryland, College Park (US)
  • American University (US)
Corresponding author
Elton, Daniel C.
Venue
Molecular Systems Design & Engineering
Published
2019
Volume
4
Issue
4
Pages
828-849
ISSN
2058-9689 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2945551948
Cited by
683
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 86 · 2025: 77 · 2024: 84 · 2023: 90 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 131 · 2020: 102 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
58.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Molecular Systems Design & Engineering (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
Office of Naval Research (N00014-17-1-2108)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
Keywords
deep learning, molecular design, generative models, molecular optimization, drug discovery, machine learning in chemistry

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