The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 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 accessPreprint — published as 10.1093/bib/bbac603 · Paper page
Abstract
Motivation: Protein-ligand binding affinity prediction is an important task in structural bioinformatics for drug discovery and design. Although various scoring functions have been proposed, it remains challenging to accurately evaluate the binding affinity of a protein-ligand complex with known bound structure due to the potential preference of scoring system. In recent years, deep learning techniques have been applied to scoring functions 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. Results: 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 scoring functions. 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 scoring functions on two widely used benchmark datasets. The results demonstrate the superiority of EGNA and its good generalization capability. Availability and implementation: The web server and source code of EGNA is available at www.csbio.sjtu.edu.cn/bioinf/EGNA and https://github.com/chunqiux/EGNA . Contact: hbshen@sjtu.edu.cn or 2008xypan@sjtu.edu.cn 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
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 46
- 10.1038/nbt.3300 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF00124387 · DOI
- Brandsdal, B.O. , et al. (2003) Free Energy Calculations and Ligand Binding. In, Advances in protein chemistry. Academic Press, pp. 123–158. · DOI
- 2008, Calorimetry and thermodynamics in drug design, Annual review of biophysics, 37, 135, 10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132812 · DOI
- 2020, Rigorous Free Energy Simulations in Virtual Screening, Journal of chemical information and modeling, 60, 4153, 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00116 · DOI
- Deng, L. , Hinton, G.E. and Kingsbury, B. (2013) New types of deep neural network learning for speech recognition and related applications: an overview. ICASSP. IEEE, pp. 8599–8603. · DOI
- 2004, Predicting protein-ligand binding affinities using novel geometrical descriptors and machine-learning methods, Journal of chemical information and computer sciences, 44, 699, 10.1021/ci034246+ · DOI
- 10.1021/ja960751u · DOI
- 10.1021/ci200082t · DOI
- 10.1021/ci100244v · DOI
- Fout, A. , et al. (2017) Protein interface prediction using graph convolutional networks. Proceedings of the 31st International Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems. Curran Associates Inc., Long Beach, California, USA, pp. 6533–6542.
- 10.1038/nrd2589 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.biophys.36.040306.132550 · DOI
- He, K. , et al. (2016) Deep Residual Learning for Image Recognition. 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). pp. 770–778. · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00650 · DOI
- 10.1063/1.445869 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature14539 · DOI · Paper page
- 2015, Improving AutoDock Vina Using Random Forest: The Growing Accuracy of Binding Affinity Prediction by the Effective Exploitation of Larger Data Sets, Molecular Informatics, 34, 115, 10.1002/minf.201400132 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- Li, S. , et al. (2021) Structure-aware Interactive Graph Neural Networks for the Prediction of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity, Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining. · DOI
- 10.1021/ci500731a · DOI
- 2017, Forging the Basis for Developing Protein-Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions, Accounts of chemical research, 50, 302, 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cbpa.2007.08.033 · DOI
- 10.1002/jcc.540130412 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw280 · DOI
- Meng, Z. and Xia, K. (2021) Persistent spectral-based machine learning (PerSpect ML) for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, Science advances, 7. · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkw1081 · DOI
- 2019, AGL-Score: Algebraic Graph Learning Score for Protein-Ligand Binding Scoring, Ranking, Docking, and Screening, Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59, 3291, 10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00334 · DOI
- 2011, Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox, Journal of cheminformatics, 3, 33, 10.1186/1758-2946-3-33 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drudis.2007.07.006 · DOI
- 2011, HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment, Nature methods, 9, 173
- 2004, Scoring functions for protein-ligand interactions: a critical perspective, Drug discovery today. Technologies, 1, 231, 10.1016/j.ddtec.2004.08.004 · DOI
- 2014, Protein conformational dynamics dictate the binding affinity for a ligand, Nature communications, 5, 3724, 10.1038/ncomms4724 · DOI
- 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
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty374 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00545 · DOI
- Sundararajan, M. , Taly, A. and Yan, Q. (2017) Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. International conference on machine learning. pp. 3319––3328.
- 2017, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 30, 5998
- 2017, Feature functional theory–binding predictor (FFT–BP) for the blind prediction of binding free energies, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts, 136, 55, 10.1007/s00214-017-2083-1 · DOI
- Wang, D.D. , Zhu, M. and Yan, H. (2021) Computationally predicting binding affinity in protein-ligand complexes: free energy-based simulations and machine learning-based scoring functions, Briefings in bioinformatics, 22. · DOI
- 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
- 2021, A Comprehensive Survey on Graph Neural Networks, IEEE transactions on neural networks and learning systems, 32, 4, 10.1109/TNNLS.2020.2978386 · DOI · Paper page
- 2022, Fast protein structure comparison through effective representation learning with contrastive graph neural networks, PLOS Computational Biology, 18, e1009986, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009986 · DOI
- 2021, GraphBind: protein structural context embedded rules learned by hierarchical graph neural networks for recognizing nucleic-acid-binding residues, Nucleic acids research, 49, e51, 10.1093/nar/gkab044 · DOI
- 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
Metadata
- Authors
- Xia, C., Feng, S.-H., Xia, Y., Pan, X., & Shen, H.-B.
- Affiliations
- Shanghai Jiao Tong University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Pan, Xiaoyong
- Shen, Hong-Bin
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2022-08-21
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4315434793
- Cited by
- 30
- References
- 1
- 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
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Natural Science Foundation of China (61903248, 61725302, 62073219, 92059206)
- Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality (20S11902100, 22511104100, 22511104100, 20S11902100)
- Major Research Plan (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