Proteochemometric modelling coupled to in silico target prediction: an integrated approach for the simultaneous prediction of polypharmacology and binding affinity/potency of small molecules
Open accessAbstract
The rampant increase of public bioactivity databases has fostered the development of computational chemogenomics methodologies to evaluate potential ligand-target interactions (polypharmacology) both in a qualitative and quantitative way. Bayesian target prediction algorithms predict the probability of an interaction between a compound and a panel of targets, thus assessing compound polypharmacology qualitatively, whereas structure-activity relationship techniques are able to provide quantitative bioactivity predictions. We propose an integrated drug discovery pipeline combining in silico target prediction and proteochemometric modelling (PCM) for the respective prediction of compound polypharmacology and potency/affinity. The proposed pipeline was evaluated on the retrospective discovery of Plasmodium falciparum DHFR inhibitors. The qualitative in silico target prediction model comprised 553,084 ligand-target associations (a total of 262,174 compounds), covering 3,481 protein targets and used protein domain annotations to extrapolate predictions across species. The prediction of bioactivities for plasmodial DHFR led to a recall value of 79% and a precision of 100%, where the latter high value arises from the structural similarity of plasmodial DHFR inhibitors and T. gondii DHFR inhibitors in the training set. Quantitative PCM models were then trained on a dataset comprising 20 eukaryotic, protozoan and bacterial DHFR sequences, and 1,505 distinct compounds (in total 3,099 data points). The most predictive PCM model exhibited R 2 0 test and RMSE test values of 0.79 and 0.59 pIC 50 units respectively, which was shown to outperform models based exclusively on compound (R 2 0 test/RMSE test = 0.63/0.78) and target information (R 2 0 test/RMSE test = 0.09/1.22), as well as inductive transfer knowledge between targets, with respective R 2 0 test and RMSE test values of 0.76 and 0.63 pIC 50 units. Finally, both methods were integrated to predict the protein targets and the potency on plasmodial DHFR for the GSK TCAMS dataset, which comprises 13,533 compounds displaying strong anti-malarial activity. 534 of those compounds were identified as DHFR inhibitors by the target prediction algorithm, while the PCM algorithm identified 25 compounds, and 23 compounds (predicted pIC 50 > 7) were identified by both methods. Overall, this integrated approach simultaneously provides target and potency/affinity predictions for small molecules.
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A recent study demonstrated significant advantages of PCM approach and inductive transfer of knowledge between targets over traditional methods.
“A recent study, has also demonstrated significant advantages of PCM approach and inductive transfer of knowledge between the targets over traditional methods.120”
From QSAR without borders (2020) · cites this paper as [120]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 53 · Cited by 38
- Authors
- Paricharak, S., Cortés-Ciriano, I., IJzerman, A. P., Malliavin, T. E., & Bender, A.
- Affiliations
- Leiden University (NL)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Malliavin, Thérèse E
- Bender, Andreas
- Venue
- Journal of Cheminformatics
- Published
- 2015-04-15
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 15-15
- ISSN
- 1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4413554
- OpenAlex
- W2097363837
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 53
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3
- FWCI
- 5.84
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (017.009-065, NWO-017.009-065)
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique
- FP7 Ideas: European Research Council (336159)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Keywords
- in silico target prediction, polypharmacology, binding affinity prediction, potency prediction, small molecules, ligand-target interactions, dihydrofolate reductase inhibitors, Plasmodium falciparum, antimalarial compounds, structure-activity relationship, protein domain annotation, interspecies extrapolation
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