PreprintCited by 24Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

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

From Proteins to Ligands: Decoding Deep Learning Methods for Binding Affinity Prediction

Open access
Gorantla, Rohan, Kubincová, Ažbeta, Weiße, Andrea Y., Mey, Antonia S. J. S.·2023·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Preprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c01208 · Paper page

Abstract

Accurate in silico prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity is important in the early stages of drug discovery. Deep learning-based methods exist but have yet to overtake more conventional methods such as giga-docking largely due to their lack of generalisability. To improve generalizability we need to understand what these models learn from input protein and ligand data. We systematically investigated a sequence-based deep learning framework to assess the impact of protein and ligand encodings on predicting binding affinities for commonly used kinase data sets. The role of proteins is studied using convolutional neural network-based encodings obtained from sequences and graph neural network-based encodings enriched with structural information from contact maps. Ligand-based encodings are generated from graph-neural networks. We test different ligand perturbations by randomizing node and edge properties. For proteins we make use of 3 different protein contact generation methods (AlphaFold2, Pconsc4, and ESM-1b) and compare these with a random control. Our investigation shows that protein encodings do not substantially impact the binding predictions, with no statistically significant difference in binding affinity for KIBA in the investigated metrics (concordance index, Pearson’s R Spearman’s Rank, and RMSE). Significant differences are seen for ligand encodings with random ligands and random ligand node properties, suggesting a much bigger reliance on ligand data for the learning tasks. Using different ways to combine protein and ligand encodings, did not show a significant change in performance. TOC Graphic:

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 · 10.1101/2023.08.01.551483

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 51

  1. Brown, N ., Artificial Intelligence in Drug Discovery ; Royal Society of Chemistry: 2020; Vol. 75. · DOI
  2. 2021, Int. J. Mol. Sci., 22, 4435, 10.3390/ijms22094435 · DOI
  3. 10.1021/jm0203783 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1016/bs.pmch.2021.01.004 · DOI
  5. 2020, Living J. Mol. Sci, 2, 18378
  6. 2016, Bioorg. Med. Chem, 24, 4890, 10.1016/j.bmc.2016.07.044 · DOI
  7. 2022, Living J. Mol. Sci, 4, 1497
  8. 2023, Nat. Chem. Biol, 19, 712, 10.1038/s41589-022-01234-w · DOI · Paper page
  9. 2019, Nucleic Acids Res., 47, D520, 10.1093/nar/gky949 · DOI · Paper page
  10. 2014, T. J. Chem. Inf. Model, 54, 735, 10.1021/ci400709d · DOI
  11. 10.1038/nbt.1990 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 2022, QRB Discov, 3, e14, 10.1017/qrd.2022.12 · DOI
  13. 2022, Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J., 20, 2831, 10.1016/j.csbj.2022.06.004 · DOI
  14. 2015, arXiv, 1510, 02855
  15. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty374 · DOI
  16. 10.1021/acs.jcim.7b00650 · DOI
  17. 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c01306 · DOI
  18. 2021, Bioinform. Biol. Insights, 15, 1
  19. Wang, K. ; Zhou, R. ; Tang, J. ; Li, M . Bioinformatics 2023, 39. · DOI
  20. Jin, Z. ; Wu, T. ; Chen, T. ; Pan, D. ; Wang, X. ; Xie, J. ; Quan, L. ; Lyu, Q . Bioinformatics 2023, 39. · DOI
  21. 2022, ACS Omega, 7, 2706, 10.1021/acsomega.1c05203 · DOI
  22. 2021, Bioinformatics, 37, 1140, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa921 · DOI
  23. 2020, RSC Adv, 10, 20701, 10.1039/D0RA02297G · DOI · Paper page
  24. 2018, Bioinformatics, 34, 821, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty593 · DOI
  25. Öztürk, H. ; Ozkirimli, E. ; Özgür, A. arXiv:1902.04166 2019. · arXiv
  26. 2019, Bioinformatics, 35, 2677, 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1036 · DOI
  27. Lin, X. ; Zhao, K. ; Xiao, T. ; Quan, Z. ; Wang, Z.-J. ; Yu, P. S. In ECAI, 2020, pp 1–8. · DOI
  28. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz111 · DOI
  29. 2021, Int. J. Mol. Sci, 22, 8993, 10.3390/ijms22168993 · DOI
  30. 2021, IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform, 19, 718
  31. 2021, J. Phys. Chem. Lett, 12, 4247, 10.1021/acs.jpclett.1c00867 · DOI
  32. 2022, J. Med. Chem, 65, 7946, 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00487 · DOI
  33. 10.1101/2020.12.15.422761 · DOI · Paper page
  34. 10.1093/NAR/GKAA895 · DOI
  35. 2017, J. Cheminformatics, 9, 1, 10.1186/s13321-016-0187-6 · DOI
  36. Vaswani, A. ; Shazeer, N. ; Parmar, N. ; Uszkoreit, J. ; Jones, L. ; Gomez, A. N. ; Kaiser, L-. ; Polosukhin, I. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 2017, 30.
  37. 10.1093/nar/gkw1099 · DOI · Paper page
  38. 10.1021/cr3002356 · DOI
  39. 2023, Phys. Biol, 20, 046004, 10.1088/1478-3975/acd543 · DOI
  40. Ronneberger, O. ; Fischer, P. ; Brox, T. In MICCAI, 2015, pp 234–241. · DOI · Paper page
  41. 10.1093/NAR/GKAB1061 · DOI · Paper page
  42. 2022, Biophys. J, 121, 272a
  43. 10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 2020, J. Cheminformatics, 12, 1, 10.1186/s13321-019-0407-y · DOI
  45. 2016, arXiv, 1609, 02907
  46. 2020, BMC Genom, 21, 1, 10.1186/s12864-019-6419-1 · DOI
  47. 10.1371/journal.pone.0061007 · DOI
  48. 10.1093/nar/gkv1072 · DOI
  49. 10.1186/s12859-021-04034-6 · DOI
  50. 2021, Chem. Inf. Model, 62, 240
  51. 2022, J. Chem. Theory Comput, 18, 6259, 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c00752 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Gorantla, R., Kubincová, A., Weiße, A. Y., & Mey, A. S. J. S.
Affiliations
University of Edinburgh (GB)
Corresponding author
Mey, Antonia S. J. S.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-08-03
Volume
64
Issue
7
Pages
2496-2507
ISSN
1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4388820090
Cited by
24
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 8
FWCI
3.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • UK Research and Innovation (EP/S02431X/1, grant EP/S02431X/1)
  • University of Edinburgh
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 Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
protein-ligand binding affinity prediction, deep learning, kinase inhibitors, protein contact maps, graph neural networks, convolutional neural networks, AlphaFold2, model generalization, KIBA
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, 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