The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Leveraging scaffold information to predict protein–ligand binding affinity with an empirical graph neural network
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Protein–ligand binding affinity prediction is an important task in structural bioinformatics for drug discovery and design. Although various scoring functions (SFs) have been proposed, it remains challenging to accurately evaluate the binding affinity of a protein–ligand complex with the known bound structure because of the potential preference of scoring system. In recent years, deep learning (DL) techniques have been applied to SFs without sophisticated feature engineering. Nevertheless, existing methods cannot model the differential contribution of atoms in various regions of proteins, and the relationship between atom properties and intermolecular distance is also not fully explored. We propose a novel empirical graph neural network for accurate protein–ligand binding affinity prediction (EGNA). Graphs of protein, ligand and their interactions are constructed based on different regions of each bound complex. Proteins and ligands are effectively represented by graph convolutional layers, enabling the EGNA to capture interaction patterns precisely by simulating empirical SFs. The contributions of different factors on binding affinity can thus be transparently investigated. EGNA is compared with the state-of-the-art machine learning-based SFs on two widely used benchmark data sets. The results demonstrate the superiority of EGNA and its good generalization capability.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition
He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., & Sun, J. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.90 · Cited by 235,474
LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., & Hinton, G. (2015) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature14539 · Cited by 84,126
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
Forging the basis for developing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions.
Liu, Z., Su, M., Han, L., Liu, J., Yang, Q., Li, Y., & Wang, R. (2017) · Accounts of Chemical Research · doi:10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491 · Cited by 493
Li, H., Leung, K., Wong, M., & Ballester, P. J. (2015) · Molecular Informatics · doi:10.1002/minf.201400132 · Cited by 252
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 44
- Gilson, 2007, Calculation of protein-ligand binding affinities, Annu Rev Biophys Biomol Struct, 36, 21, 10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132550 · DOI
- Seo, 2014, Protein conformational dynamics dictate the binding affinity for a ligand, Nat Commun, 5, 3724, 10.1038/ncomms4724 · DOI
- Furuhashi, 2008, Fatty acid-binding proteins: role in metabolic diseases and potential as drug targets, Nat Rev Drug Discov, 7, 489, 10.1038/nrd2589 · DOI
- McInnes, 2007, Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery, Curr Opin Chem Biol, 11, 494, 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.033 · DOI
- Chaires, 2008, Calorimetry and thermodynamics in drug design, Annu Rev Biophys, 37, 135, 10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132812 · DOI
- Cournia, 2020, Rigorous free energy simulations in virtual screening, J Chem Inf Model, 60, 4153, 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00116 · DOI
- Brandsdal, 2003, Free energy calculations and ligand binding, Adv Protein Chem Academic Press, 66, 123, 10.1016/S0065-3233(03)66004-3 · DOI
- Li, 2019, An overview of scoring functions used for protein-ligand interactions in molecular docking, Interdiscip Sci, 11, 320, 10.1007/s12539-019-00327-w · DOI
- Deng, 2004, Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities using novel geometrical descriptors and machine-learning methods, J Chem Inf Comput Sci, 44, 699, 10.1021/ci034246+ · DOI
- Wang, 2021, Computationally predicting binding affinity in protein-ligand complexes: free energy-based simulations and machine learning-based scoring functions, Brief Bioinform, 22
- Su, 2019, Comparative assessment of scoring functions: the CASF-2016 update, J Chem Inf Model, 59, 895, 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545 · DOI
- Dunbar, 2011, CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: selection of the protein-ligand complexes, J Chem Inf Model, 51, 2036, 10.1021/ci200082t · DOI
- Meng, 1992, Automated docking with grid-based energy evaluation, J Comput Chem, 13, 505, 10.1002/jcc.540130412 · DOI
- Jorgensen, 1983, Comparison of simple potential functions for simulating liquid water, J Chem Phys, 79, 926, 10.1063/1.445869 · DOI
- Raha, 2007, The role of quantum mechanics in structure-based drug design, Drug Discov Today, 12, 725, 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.07.006 · DOI
- DeWitte, 1996, SMoG: de novo design method based on simple, fast, and accurate free energy estimates. 1. Methodology and supporting evidence, J Am Chem Soc, 118, 11733, 10.1021/ja960751u · DOI
- Bohm, 1992, The computer program LUDI: a new method for the de novo design of enzyme inhibitors, J Comput Aided Mol Des, 6, 61, 10.1007/BF00124387 · DOI
- Wang, 2002, Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction, J Comput Aided Mol Des, 16, 11, 10.1023/A:1016357811882 · DOI
- Liu, 2015, Classification of current scoring functions, J Chem Inf Model, 55, 475, 10.1021/ci500731a · DOI
- Ballester, 2010, A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking, Bioinformatics, 26, 1169, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · DOI
- Nguyen, 2019, AGL-score: algebraic graph learning score for protein-ligand binding scoring, ranking, docking, and screening, J Chem Inf Model, 59, 3291, 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00334 · DOI
- Durrant, 2010, NNScore: a neural-network-based scoring function for the characterization of protein-ligand complexes, J Chem Inf Model, 50, 1865, 10.1021/ci100244v · DOI
- Alipanahi, 2015, Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning, Nat Biotechnol, 33, 831, 10.1038/nbt.3300 · DOI · Paper page
- Xia, 2022, Fast protein structure comparison through effective representation learning with contrastive graph neural networks, PLoS Comput Biol, 18, e1009986, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009986 · DOI
- Stepniewska-Dziubinska, 2018, Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, Bioinformatics, 34, 3666, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty374 · DOI
- Jimenez, 2018, KDEEP: protein-ligand absolute binding affinity prediction via 3D-convolutional neural networks, J Chem Inf Model, 58, 287, 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00650 · DOI
- Zheng, 2019, OnionNet: a multiple-layer intermolecular-contact-based convolutional neural network for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, ACS Omega, 4, 15956, 10.1021/acsomega.9b01997 · DOI
- Seo, 2021, Binding affinity prediction for protein-ligand complex using deep attention mechanism based on intermolecular interactions, BMC Bioinformatics, 22, 542, 10.1186/s12859-021-04466-0 · DOI
- Li, 2021, Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining
- Wu, 2021, A comprehensive survey on graph neural networks, IEEE Trans Neural Netw Learn Syst, 32, 4, 10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386 · DOI · Paper page
- Fout, 2017, Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems, 6533
- Xia, 2021, GraphBind: protein structural context embedded rules learned by hierarchical graph neural networks for recognizing nucleic-acid-binding residues, Nucleic Acids Res, 49, e51, 10.1093/nar/gkab044 · DOI
- Remmert, 2011, HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment, Nat Methods, 9, 173, 10.1038/nmeth.1818 · DOI · Paper page
- Mirdita, 2017, Uniclust databases of clustered and deeply annotated protein sequences and alignments, Nucleic Acids Res, 45, D170, 10.1093/nar/gkw1081 · DOI
- O'Boyle, 2011, Open babel: an open chemical toolbox, J Chem, 3, 33
- Veličković, 2018, Graph attention networks, ICLR
- Schulz-Gasch, 2004, Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: a critical perspective, Drug Discov Today Technol, 1, 231, 10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.08.004 · DOI
- Meng, 2021, Persistent spectral-based machine learning (PerSpect ML) for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, Sci Adv, 66, 7
- Wojcikowski, 2019, Development of a protein-ligand extended connectivity (PLEC) fingerprint and its application for binding affinity predictions, Bioinformatics, 35, 1334, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty757 · DOI
- Wang, 2017, Feature functional theory–binding predictor (FFT–BP) for the blind prediction of binding free energies, Theor Chem Acc, 136, 55, 10.1007/s00214-017-2083-1 · DOI
- Meng, 2016, DFLpred: high-throughput prediction of disordered flexible linker regions in protein sequences, Bioinformatics, 32, i341, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw280 · DOI
- Sundararajan, 2017, International Conference on Machine Learning, 3319
- Senior, 2020, Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning, Nature, 577, 706, 10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7 · DOI · Paper page
- McCloskey, 2019, Using attribution to decode binding mechanism in neural network models for chemistry, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 116, 11624, 10.1073/pnas.1820657116 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Protein representations: Encoding biological information for machine learning in biocatalysis
Harding-Larsen, D., Funk, J., Madsen, N. G., Gharabli, H., Acevedo-Rocha, C. G., Mazurenko, S., & Welner, D. H. (2024) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2024.108459 · Cited by 38
Metadata
- Authors
- Xia, C., Feng, S.-H., Xia, Y., Pan, X., & Shen, H.-B.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Institute of Image Processing and Pattern Recognition, Shanghai Jiao Tong University , and Key Laboratory of System Control and Information Processing, Ministry of Education of China, 200240 Shanghai , China
- Corresponding author
- Pan, Xiaoyong
- Shen, Hong-Bin
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2023-01
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- OpenAlex
- W4315434793
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 2.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20S11902100, 22511104100)
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61725302, 62073219, 61903248, 92059206)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › 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 Structure and Dynamics
- Keywords
- protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, scoring functions, protein-ligand complex, graph convolutional layers, intermolecular distance, drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, 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