PINNED: identifying characteristics of druggable human proteins using an interpretable neural network
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The identification of human proteins that are amenable to pharmacologic modulation without significant off-target effects remains an important unsolved challenge. Computational methods have been devised to identify features which distinguish between “druggable” and “undruggable” proteins, finding that protein sequence, tissue and cellular localization, biological role, and position in the protein–protein interaction network are all important discriminant factors. However, many prior efforts to automate the assessment of protein druggability suffer from low performance or poor interpretability. We developed a neural network-based machine learning model capable of generating druggability sub-scores based on each of four distinct categories, combining them to form an overall druggability score. The model achieves an excellent performance in separating drugged and undrugged proteins in the human proteome, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUC) of 0.95. Our use of multiple sub-scores allows the assessment of potential protein targets of interest based on distinct contributors to druggability, leading to a more interpretable and holistic model to identify novel targets.
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
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 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Cunningham, M., Pins, D., Dezső, Z., Torrent, M., Vasanthakumar, A., & Pandey, A.
- Affiliations
- AbbVie (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cunningham, Michael
- Venue
- Journal of Cheminformatics
- Published
- 2023-07-19
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 64-64
- ISSN
- 1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10354961
- OpenAlex
- W4384820162
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.85
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › 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 › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
- Keywords
- interpretable neural networks, off-target effects, protein-protein interaction network, protein localization, protein sequence features, drug target identification, human proteome
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