The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Exploring The Ability Of Machine Learning-Based Virtual Screening Models To Identify The Functional Groups Responsible For Binding
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1186/s13321-023-00755-3 · Paper page
Abstract
Many recently proposed structure-based virtual screening models appear to be able to accurately distinguish high affinity binders from non-binders. However, several recent studies have shown that they often do so by exploiting ligand-specific biases in the dataset, rather than identifying favourable intermolecular interactions in the input protein-ligand complex. In this work we propose a novel approach for assessing the extent to which machine learningbased virtual screening models are able to identify the functional groups responsible for binding. To sidestep the difficulty in establishing the ground truth importance of each atom of a large scale set of protein-ligand complexes, we propose a protocol for generating synthetic data where the label of an example is assigned by a 3-dimensional deterministic binding rule. This allows us to precisely quantify the ground truth importance of each atom and compare it to the model generated attributions. Using our generated datasets, we demonstrate that a recently proposed deep learning-based virtual screening model, PointVS, identified the most important functional groups with 39% more efficiency than a fingerprint-based random forest, suggesting that it would generalise more effectively to new examples. In addition, we found that ligand-specific biases, such as those present in widely used virtual screening datasets, substantially impaired the ability of all ML models to identify the most important functional groups. We have made our synthetic data generation framework available to facilitate the benchmarking of new virtual screening models. Code is available at https://github.com/tomhadfield95/synthVS .
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: 32
- 10.1001/jama.2020.1166 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/nature24270 · DOI · Paper page
- 2020, Language Models Are Few-Shot Learners, Proc. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst, 33, 1877
- 2019, From Target To Drug: Generative Modeling For The Multimodal Structure-Based Ligand Design, Mol. Pharm, 16, 4282, 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.9b00634 · DOI
- 2020, AiZynthFinder: A Fast, Robust And Flexible Open-Source Software For Retrosynthetic Planning, J. Cheminf, 12, 1
- 2010, AutoDock Vina: Improving The Speed And Accuracy Of Docking With A New Scoring Function, Efficient Optimization, And Multithreading, J. Comp. Chem, 31, 455, 10.1002/jcc.21334 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/prot.10465 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112 · DOI
- 10.1021/ci2003889 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00355 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00740 · DOI
- 2018, Protein FamilySpecific Models Using Deep Neural Networks And Transfer Learning Improve Virtual Screening And Highlight The Need For More Data, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 58, 2319, 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00350 · DOI
- 2019, Hidden Bias In The DUD-E Dataset Leads To Misleading Performance Of Deep Learning In Structure-Based Virtual Screening, PloS One, 14, e0220113, 10.1371/journal.pone.0220113 · DOI
- 2022, On the Frustration to Predict Binding Affinities from Protein–Ligand Structures with Deep Neural Networks, J. Med. Chem, 65, 7946, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00487 · DOI
- 2020, Data Set Augmentation Allows Deep Learning-Based Virtual Screening To Better Generalize To Unseen Target Classes And Highlight Important Binding Interactions, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 60, 3722, 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00263 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1820657116 · DOI
- Sundar, V. ,,, Colwell, L. Attribution Methods Reveal Flaws In Fingerprint-Based Virtual Screening. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:2007.01436 2020, · arXiv
- 2021, Benchmarks For Interpretation Of QSAR Models, J. Cheminf, 13, 1
- Sundararajan, M. ,,, Taly, A. ,,, Yan, Q. Axiomatic Attribution For Deep Networks. Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 2017; pp 3319–3328.
- 2018, Visualizing Convolutional Neural Network Protein-Ligand Scoring, J. Mol. Graph. Model, 84, 96, 10.1016/j.jmgm.2018.06.005 · DOI
- Scantlebury, J. ,,, Vost, L. ,,, Carbery, A. ,,, Hadfield, T. E. ,,, Turnbull, O. M. ,,, Brown, N. ,,, Chenthamarakshan, V. ,,, Das, P. ,,, Grosjean, H. ,,, Delft, F. v. ,,, Deane, C. M. PointVS: A Machine Learning Scoring Function that Identifies Important Binding Interactions. bioRxiv 2022,
- 10.1021/ci100050t · 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
- 2015, Open Drug Discovery Toolkit (ODDT): A New Open-Source Player In The Drug Discovery Field, J. Cheminf, 7, 1
- Satorras, V. G. ,,, Hoogeboom, E. ,,, Welling, M. E (n) Equivariant Graph Neural Networks. Proc. Int. Conf. Mach. Learn. 2021; pp 9323–9332.
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b00559 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/jm300687e · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b00712 · DOI
- 2020, LIT-PCBA: An Unbiased Data Set For Machine Learning And Virtual Screening, J. Chem. Inf. Model, 60, 4263, 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00155 · DOI
- 2017, Forging The Basis For Developing Protein–Ligand Interaction Scoring Functions, Acc. Chem. Res, 50, 302, 10.1021/acs.accounts.6b00491 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/srep41926 · DOI
- 2022, Meaningful Machine Learning Models and Machine-Learned Pharmacophores from Fragment Screening Campaigns, arXiv preprint
Metadata
- Authors
- Hadfield, T. E., Scantlebury, J., & Deane, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Deane, Charlotte M.
- Venue
- Journal of Cheminformatics
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2023-04-30
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-84
- ISSN
- 1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10509074
- OpenAlex
- W4386847912
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Roche
- F. Hoffmann-La Roche
- LifeArc
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L016044/1)
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/S507611/1)
- UCB Pharma
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Keywords
- structure-based virtual screening, functional group identification, model interpretability, synthetic data generation, pharmacophore, protein-ligand binding
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