Exploring the ability of machine learning-based virtual screening models to identify the functional groups responsible for binding
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
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 learning-based 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. Each ligand in the dataset is surrounded by a randomly sampled point cloud of pharmacophores, and the label assigned to the synthetic protein-ligand complex is determined 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 .
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
Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening.
Wójcikowski, M., Ballester, P. J., & Siedlecki, P. (2017) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/srep46710 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Hadfield, T. E., Scantlebury, J., & Deane, C. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Deane, Charlotte M.
- Venue
- Journal of Cheminformatics
- Published
- 2023-09-19
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 84-84
- ISSN
- 1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10509074
- OpenAlex
- W4386847912
- Cited by
- 9
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
- Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/L016044/1)
- Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/S507611/1)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › 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