Attention-based approach to predict drug–target interactions across seven target superfamilies
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Motivation: Drug–target interactions (DTIs) hold a pivotal role in drug repurposing and elucidation of drug mechanisms of action. While single-targeted drugs have demonstrated clinical success, they often exhibit limited efficacy against complex diseases, such as cancers, whose development and treatment is dependent on several biological processes. Therefore, a comprehensive understanding of primary, secondary and even inactive targets becomes essential in the quest for effective and safe treatments for cancer and other indications. The human proteome offers over a thousand druggable targets, yet most FDA-approved drugs bind to only a small fraction of these targets. Results: This study introduces an attention-based method (called as MMAtt-DTA) to predict drug–target bioactivities across human proteins within seven superfamilies. We meticulously examined nine different descriptor sets to identify optimal signature descriptors for predicting novel DTIs. Our testing results demonstrated Spearman correlations exceeding 0.72 (P < 0.001) for six out of seven superfamilies. The proposed method outperformed fourteen state-of-the-art machine learning, deep learning and graph-based methods and maintained relatively high performance for most target superfamilies when tested with independent bioactivity data sources. We computationally validated 185 676 drug–target pairs from ChEMBL-V33 that were not available during model training, achieving a reasonable performance with Spearman correlation >0.57 (P < 0.001) for most superfamilies. This underscores the robustness of the proposed method for predicting novel DTIs. Finally, we applied our method to predict missing bioactivities among 3492 approved molecules in ChEMBL-V33, offering a valuable tool for advancing drug mechanism discovery and repurposing existing drugs for new indications. Availability and implementation: https://github.com/AronSchulman/MMAtt-DTA.
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
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Davis (Davis et al. 2011) provides large-scale benchmarking data from high throughput target activity screening, where each of the 442 human kinases is screened against each of 72 inhibitors (442 × 72 ¼ 31 824 interactions).”
BackgroundDouglass, E. F., Allaway, R. J., Szalai, B., Wang, W., Tian, T., Fernández-Torras, A., Realubit, R., Karan, C., Zheng, S., Pessia, A., et al. (2022) · Cell Reports Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.xcrm.2021.100492 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Schulman, A., Rousu, J., Aittokallio, T., & Tanoli, Z.
- Affiliations
- University of Helsinki (FI)
- Aalto University (FI)
- Oslo University Hospital (NO)
- Corresponding author
- Tanoli, Ziaurrehman
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-08
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 8
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC11520408
- OpenAlex
- W4401411045
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 13
- FWCI
- 5.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Aaltodoc (Aalto University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Työväentutkimus Vuosikirja (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Research Council of Finland (351507, 340141, 344698, 345803)
- 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 › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Keywords
- drug-target interactions, protein superfamilies, drug repurposing, mechanism of action, human proteome
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Humans, Proteins, Computational Biology, Drug Discovery, Drug Repositioning
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