PreprintCited by 19Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ICAN: interpretable cross-attention network for identifying drug and target protein interactions

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1371/journal.pone.0276609

Abstract

Drug–target protein interaction (DTI) identification is fundamental for drug discovery and drug repositioning, because therapeutic drugs act on disease-causing proteins. However, the DTI identification process often requires expensive and time-consuming tasks, including biological experiments involving large numbers of candidate compounds. Thus, a variety of computation approaches have been developed. Of the many approaches available, chemo-genomics feature-based methods have attracted considerable attention. These methods compute the feature descriptors of drugs and proteins as the input data to train machine and deep learning models to enable accurate prediction of unknown DTIs. In addition, attention-based learning methods have been proposed to identify and interpret DTI mechanisms. However, improvements are needed for enhancing prediction performance and DTI mechanism elucidation. To address these problems, we developed an attention-based method designated the interpretable cross-attention network (ICAN), which predicts DTIs using the Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry System of drugs and amino acid sequences of target proteins. We optimized the attention mechanism architecture by exploring the cross-attention or self-attention, attention layer depth, and selection of the context matrixes from the attention mechanism. We found that a plain attention mechanism that decodes drug-related protein context features without any protein-related drug context features effectively achieved high performance. The ICAN outperformed state-of-the-art methods in several respects and revealed with statistical significance that some weighted sites in the cross-attention weight represent experimental binding sites, thus demonstrating the high interpretability of the results. Key points: We created the interpretable cross-attention network (ICAN), which is composed of nn.Embedding of FCS label-encoding vectors of SMILES of drugs and AA sequences of target proteins, cross-attention mechanisms, and a CNN output layer. ICAN decoded drug-related protein context features without any protein-related drug context features, achieving high prediction performance despite the plain attention mechanism. In comparison with seven state-of-the-art methods, ICAN provided the highest PRAUC for the imbalanced datasets (DAVIS and BindingDB). Statistical analysis of attention-weight matrixes revealed that some weighted attention sites corresponded to experimental binding sites, demonstrating the high interpretability achievable with ICAN.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2022.08.04.502877

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig 1 Architecture of the cross-attention-based neural network. It is the CA_DP network (Table 2). Q, K, and V indicate Query, Key, and Value matrixes. AW: Attention-weight matrix, A: Attention matrix, D: Drug-context matrix, P: Protein-context matrix, d: Length of drug sequence, p: Length of protein sequence, h: Hidden dimension size.
Fig 1 Architecture of the cross-attention-based neural network. It is the CA_DP network (Table 2). Q, K, and V indicate Query, Key, and Value matrixes. AW: Attention-weight matrix, A: Attention matrix, D: Drug-context matrix, P: Protein-context matrix, d: Length of drug sequence, p: Length of protein sequence, h: Hidden dimension size.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 2 Optimization of the attention-based network architecture. Attention-based models with nn.Embedding of FCS were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. Details of the methods are shown in Table 2. CA_P was designated ICAN.
Fig 2 Optimization of the attention-based network architecture. Attention-based models with nn.Embedding of FCS were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. Details of the methods are shown in Table 2. CA_P was designated ICAN.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 3 Optimization of encoding methods. CA_Ps (ICANs) with 5 different encoding methods were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. Details regarding the encoding methods are shown in Table 1.
Fig 3 Optimization of encoding methods. CA_Ps (ICANs) with 5 different encoding methods were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. Details regarding the encoding methods are shown in Table 1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 4 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on DAVIS datasets. All models were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.
Fig 4 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on DAVIS datasets. All models were trained using the DAVIS training dataset and evaluated using the DAVIS test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 5 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on BindingDB. All models were trained using the BindingDB training dataset and evaluated using the BindingDB test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.
Fig 5 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on BindingDB. All models were trained using the BindingDB training dataset and evaluated using the BindingDB test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 6 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on BIOSNAP. All models were trained using the BIOSNAP training dataset and evaluated using the BIOSNAP test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.
Fig 6 Comparison of the performance of ICAN with that of state-of-the-art models on BIOSNAP. All models were trained using the BIOSNAP training dataset and evaluated using the BIOSNAP test dataset. CA_P was designated ICAN.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig 7 Attention-weight analysis. 160 DTIs with their binding sites were tested by ICAN. The simulation was iterated 10,000 times. (A) Attention-weight matrix for the DTI between DB06896 and P08581 (hepatocyte growth factor receptor). (B) Profile of simulated consistency numbers between the top 30 attention sites and randomly generated binding sites. (C) Effect of the number of top attention sites on experimental consistency numbers and associated z-scores. Experimental consistency numbers and associated z-scores were calculated with respect to a change in the top attention site number. (D) Effect of a shift of attention sites on experimental consistency number and their z-score values.
Fig 7 Attention-weight analysis. 160 DTIs with their binding sites were tested by ICAN. The simulation was iterated 10,000 times. (A) Attention-weight matrix for the DTI between DB06896 and P08581 (hepatocyte growth factor receptor). (B) Profile of simulated consistency numbers between the top 30 attention sites and randomly generated binding sites. (C) Effect of the number of top attention sites on experimental consistency numbers and associated z-scores. Experimental consistency numbers and associated z-scores were calculated with respect to a change in the top attention site number. (D) Effect of a shift of attention sites on experimental consistency number and their z-score values.CC BY · PubMed Central

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Research works printed but not linked: 42

  1. 10.1038/384014a0 · DOI
  2. 2019, Computational prediction of drug-target interactions using chemogenomic approaches: an empirical survey, Brief Bioinform, 20, 1337, 10.1093/bib/bby002 · DOI
  3. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162 · DOI
  4. 10.1093/bib/bbt056 · DOI
  5. 10.1093/bib/bbu010 · DOI
  6. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts360 · DOI
  7. Zheng X. Collaborative matrix factorization with multiple similarities for predicting drug-target interactions. In: KDD. Chicago, 2013. · DOI
  8. 2017, Drug-Target Interaction Prediction with Graph Regularized Matrix Factorization, IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 14, 646, 10.1109/TCBB.2016.2530062 · DOI
  9. 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00618 · DOI
  10. 10.1021/ci100050t · DOI
  11. Bolton EE . Pubchem: integrated platform of small molecules and biological activities. Annual Reports in Computational Chemistry. Elsevier, 2008, 217–241. · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.92.19.8700 · DOI
  13. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa524 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1371/journal.pone.0037608 · DOI
  15. 2021, Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug-target interaction: a survey paper, Brief Bioinform, 22, 247, 10.1093/bib/bbz157 · DOI
  16. 10.1186/s13321-017-0209-z · DOI
  17. 2016, Drug-target interaction prediction via class imbalance-aware ensemble learning, BMC Bioinformatics, 17, 509, 10.1186/s12859-016-1377-y · DOI
  18. 2021, DTI-SNNFRA: Drug-target interaction prediction by shared nearest neighbors and fuzzy-rough approximation, PLoS One, 16, e0246920, 10.1371/journal.pone.0246920 · DOI
  19. Hamanaka M , Taneishi K , Iwata H et al. CGBVS-DNN: Prediction of Compound-protein Interactions Based on Deep Learning, Mol Inform 2017;36. · DOI
  20. 2022, HGDTI: predicting drug-target interaction by using information aggregation based on heterogeneous graph neural network, BMC Bioinformatics, 23, 126, 10.1186/s12859-022-04655-5 · DOI
  21. 2020, DeepCDA: deep cross-domain compoundprotein affinity prediction through LSTM and convolutional neural networks, Bioinformatics, 36, 4633, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa544 · DOI
  22. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty593 · DOI
  23. 10.1162/neco.2008.12-07-661 · DOI
  24. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007129 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz111 · DOI
  26. 2019, Compound-protein interaction prediction with end-to-end learning of neural networks for graphs and sequences, Bioinformatics, 35, 309, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty535 · DOI · Paper page
  27. 2021, GraphDTA: predicting drug-target binding affinity with graph neural networks, Bioinformatics, 37, 1140, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa921 · DOI
  28. 10.1109/TNN.2008.2005605 · DOI · Paper page
  29. 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00387 · DOI
  30. Kipf T , Welling M. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolutional networks. 5th International Conference on Learning Representations. 2017, 1–14.
  31. 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00628 · DOI · Paper page
  32. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa880 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/nbt.1990 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1093/nar/gkl999 · DOI
  35. 10.1093/nar/gkm958 · DOI
  36. 10.1021/ci00057a005 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 2020, Self-Referencing Embedded Strings (SELFIES): A 100% robust molecular string representation, Machine Learning: Science and Technology, 1, 045024
  38. Sennrich R , Haddow B , Birch A. Neural Machine Translation of Rare Words with Subword Units. 2016, p. 1715–1725. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI · Paper page
  39. 1994, A new algorithm for data compression, C Users J, 12, 23
  40. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr120 · DOI
  41. Paszke A , Gross S , Massa F et al. PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library, 33rd Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (NeurIPS 2019), Vancouver, Canada 2019:1–12.
  42. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt072 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kurata, H., & Tsukiyama, S.
Affiliations
Kyushu Institute of Technology (JP)
Corresponding author
Kurata, Hiroyuki
Venue
PLoS ONE
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-08-06
Volume
17
Issue
10
Pages
e0276609-e0276609
ISSN
1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4307171284
Cited by
19
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
FWCI
2.16
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (23K24943, 22J22706, 22H03688, 22KJ2495)
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 › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
cross-attention, model interpretability, binding site identification, drug repurposing, DAVIS dataset
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Computer Simulation, Drug Interactions, Proteins, 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