Perceiver CPI: a nested cross-attention network for compound–protein interaction prediction
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Compound–protein interaction (CPI) plays an essential role in drug discovery and is performed via expensive molecular docking simulations. Many artificial intelligence-based approaches have been proposed in this regard. Recently, two types of models have accomplished promising results in exploiting molecular information: graph convolutional neural networks that construct a learned molecular representation from a graph structure (atoms and bonds), and neural networks that can be applied to compute on descriptors or fingerprints of molecules. However, the superiority of one method over the other is yet to be determined. Modern studies have endeavored to aggregate information that is extracted from compounds and proteins to form the CPI task. Nonetheless, these approaches have used a simple concatenation to combine them, which cannot fully capture the interaction between such information. Results: We propose the Perceiver CPI network, which adopts a cross-attention mechanism to improve the learning ability of the representation of drug and target interactions and exploits the rich information obtained from extended-connectivity fingerprints to improve the performance. We evaluated Perceiver CPI on three main datasets, Davis, KIBA and Metz, to compare the performance of our proposed model with that of state-of-the-art methods. The proposed method achieved satisfactory performance and exhibited significant improvements over previous approaches in all experiments. Availability and implementation: Perceiver CPI is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/PerceiverCPI. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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
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.
Cites
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 · see citing works
Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking 1 1Edited by F. E. Cohen
Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R., & Taylor, R. (1997) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897 · Cited by 6,763 · see citing works
Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2012) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm300687e · Cited by 2,412 · see citing works
Comprehensive analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity
Davis, M. I., Hunt, J. P., Herrgard, S., Ciceri, P., Wodicka, L. M., Pallares, G., Hocker, M., Treiber, D. K., & Zarrinkar, P. P. (2011) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.1990 · Cited by 2,409 · see citing works
Unified rational protein engineering with sequence-based deep representation learning
Alley, E. C., Khimulya, G., Biswas, S., AlQuraishi, M., & Church, G. M. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0598-1 · Cited by 1,131 · see citing works
Evaluating Protein Transfer Learning with TAPE
Rao, R., Bhattacharya, N., Thomas, N., Duan, Y., Chen, X., Canny, J., Abbeel, P., & Song, Y. S. (2019) · doi:10.1101/676825 · Cited by 719 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Nguyen, N.-Q., Jang, G., Kim, H., & Kang, J.
- Affiliations
- Korea University (KR)
- Corresponding author
- Kang, Jaewoo
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-11-23
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC9848062
- OpenAlex
- W4309728351
- Cited by
- 83
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 26 · 2023: 10
- FWCI
- 8.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2020R1A2C3010638, NRF-2014M3C9A3063541)
- Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea (HR20C0021)
- 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 › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- compound-protein interaction prediction, cross-attention, Perceiver, ECFP, molecular representation, drug-target interactions, graph convolutional networks, molecular descriptors, drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Artificial Intelligence, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer, Protein Interaction Maps, 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