The DOI matches its Crossref record; 53 of the 53 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A machine learning approach to predicting protein–ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking
Open accessAbstract
Motivation: Accurately predicting the binding affinities of large sets of diverse protein–ligand complexes is an extremely challenging task. The scoring functions that attempt such computational prediction are essential for analysing the outputs of molecular docking, which in turn is an important technique for drug discovery, chemical biology and structural biology. Each scoring function assumes a predetermined theory-inspired functional form for the relationship between the variables that characterize the complex, which also include parameters fitted to experimental or simulation data and its predicted binding affinity. The inherent problem of this rigid approach is that it leads to poor predictivity for those complexes that do not conform to the modelling assumptions. Moreover, resampling strategies, such as cross-validation or bootstrapping, are still not systematically used to guard against the overfitting of calibration data in parameter estimation for scoring functions. Results: We propose a novel scoring function (RF-Score) that circumvents the need for problematic modelling assumptions via non-parametric machine learning. In particular, Random Forest was used to implicitly capture binding effects that are hard to model explicitly. RF-Score is compared with the state of the art on the demanding PDBbind benchmark. Results show that RF-Score is a very competitive scoring function. Importantly, RF-Score's performance was shown to improve dramatically with training set size and hence the future availability of more high-quality structural and interaction data is expected to lead to improved versions of RF-Score. Contact: pedro.ballester@ebi.ac.uk; jbom@st-andrews.ac.uk Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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
Breiman, L. (2001) · Machine Learning · doi:10.1023/a:1010933404324 · Cited by 133,538
Berman, H. M. (2000) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · Cited by 40,196
Classification and Regression Trees.
Gordon, A. D., Breiman, L., Friedman, J. H., Olshen, R. A., & Stone, C. J. (1984) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2530946 · Cited by 23,522
Friesner, R. A., Banks, J. L., Murphy, R. B., Halgren, T. A., Klicic, J. J., Mainz, D. T., Repasky, M. P., Knoll, E. H., Shelley, M., Perry, J. K., et al. (2004) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm0306430 · Cited by 10,057
Classification and regression trees
Praagman, J. (1985) · European Journal of Operational Research · doi:10.1016/0377-2217(85)90321-2 · Cited by 10,053
Friesner, R. A., Murphy, R. B., Repasky, M. P., Frye, L. L., Greenwood, J. R., Halgren, T. A., Sanschagrin, P. C., & Mainz, D. T. (2006) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm051256o · Cited by 6,851
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
Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications
Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H., Furr, J. R., & Bajorath, J. (2004) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd1549 · Cited by 4,150
Random Forest: A Classification and Regression Tool for Compound Classification and QSAR Modeling
Svetnik, V., Liaw, A., Tong, C., Culberson, J. C., Sheridan, R. P., & Feuston, B. P. (2003) · Journal of Chemical Information and Computer Sciences · doi:10.1021/ci034160g · Cited by 3,573
Molecular Modelling: Principles and Applications
Leach, A. R. (1996) · Cited by 1,945
Cited by
Combining Machine Learning and Computational Chemistry for Predictive Insights Into Chemical Systems
Keith, J. A., Vassilev-Galindo, V., Cheng, B., Chmiela, S., Gastegger, M., Müller, K.-R., & Tkatchenko, A. (2021) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00107 · Cited by 849
Protein–Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks
Ragoza, M., Hochuli, J., Idrobo, E., Sunseri, J., & Koes, D. R. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00740 · Cited by 774
Key Topics in Molecular Docking for Drug Design
Torres, P. H. M., Sodero, A. C. R., Jofily, P., & Silva-Jr, F. P. (2019) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms20184574 · Cited by 641
Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z., & Zou, X. (2010) · Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics · doi:10.1039/c0cp00151a · Cited by 508
Artificial intelligence in drug discovery: recent advances and future perspectives
Jiménez-Luna, J., Grisoni, F., Weskamp, N., & Schneider, G. (2021) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1080/17460441.2021.1909567 · Cited by 464
Metadata
- Authors
- Ballester, P. J., & Mitchell, J. B. O.
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-03-17
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1169-1175
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W2148512505
- Cited by
- 989
- References
- 53
- FWCI
- 16.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A machine learning approach to predicting protein–ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112
- The paper
- Ballester, P. J., & Mitchell, J. B. O. (2010). A machine learning approach to predicting protein–ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
