PreprintCited by 664Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceGraph theory and applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Could Graph Neural Networks Learn Better Molecular Representation for Drug Discovery? A Comparison Study of Descriptor-based and Graph-based Models

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1186/s13321-020-00479-8 · Paper page

Abstract

Graph neural networks (GNN) has been considered as an attractive modelling method for molecular property prediction, and numerous studies have shown that GNN could yield more promising results than traditional descriptor-based methods. In this study, based on 11 public datasets covering various property endpoints, the predictive capacity and computational efficiency of the prediction models developed by eight machine learning (ML) algorithms, including four descriptor-based models (SVM, XGBoost, RF and DNN) and four graph-based models (GCN, GAT, MPNN and Attentive FP), were extensively tested and compared. The results demonstrate that on average the descriptor-based models outperform the graph-based models in terms of prediction accuracy and computational efficiency. SVM generally achieves the best predictions for the regression tasks. Both RF and XGBoost can achieve reliable predictions for the classification tasks, and some of the graph-based models, such as Attentive FP and GCN, can yield outstanding performance for a fraction of larger or multi-task datasets. In terms of computational cost, XGBoost and RF are the two most efficient algorithms and only need a few seconds to train a model even for a large dataset. The model interpretations by the SHAP method can effectively explore the established domain knowledge for the descriptor-based models. Finally, we explored use of these models for virtual screening (VS) towards HIV and demonstrated that different ML algorithms offer diverse VS profiles. All in all, we believe that the off-the-shelf descriptor-based models still can be directly employed to accurately predict various chemical endpoints with excellent computability and interpretability.

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 · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-81439/v1

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The results of other methods in Table A.5 are taken from Jiang et al. (2020).

    “See Table A.5 for all results, where the results of other methods are taken from Jiang et al. (2020).”

    From Hopfield Networks is All You Need (2020) · cites this paper as Jiang et al. (2020)

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 17

  1. Mitchell JB (2014) Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics, Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: computational Molecular. Science 4:468-481
  2. Dahl GE, Jaitly N, Salakhutdinov R. Multi-task Neural Networks for QSAR Predictions, arXiv preprints arXiv:1406.1231 2014 · arXiv
  3. Sun M, Zhao S, Gilvary C et al (2019) Graph convolutional networks for computational drug development and discovery. Brief Bioinform 21(3):919-935
  4. Flam-Shepherd D, Wu T, Friederich P et al. Neural Message Passing on High Order Paths, arXiv preprint arXiv :2002.10413 · arXiv
  5. Chen P, Liu W, Hsieh C-Y et al. Utilizing Edge Features in Graph Neural Networks via Variational Information Maximization, arXiv preprint arXiv:.05488 2019
  6. Chen B, Barzilay R, Jaakkola T. Path-Augmented Graph Transformer Net- work, arXiv preprint arXiv:.12712 2019
  7. Shang C, Liu Q, Chen K-S et al. Edge attention-based multi-relational graph convolutional networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:.04944 2018
  8. Li J, Cai D, He X. Learning graph-level representation for drug discovery, arXiv preprint arXiv:.03741 2017
  9. Zeiler MD. Adadelta: an adaptive learning rate method, arXiv preprint arXiv:1212.5701 2012 · arXiv
  10. Chen T, Guestrin C. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In: Proceed- ings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining. 2016, p. 785-794. ACM
  11. Gilmer J, Schoenholz SS, Riley PF et al. Neural message passing for quan- tum chemistry. In: Proceedings of the 34th International Conference on Machine Learning-Volume 70. 2017, p. 1263-1272. JMLR. org
  12. Kipf TN, Welling M. Semi-supervised classification with graph convolu- tional networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1609.02907 2016 · arXiv
  13. Veličković P, Cucurull G, Casanova A et al. Graph attention networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1710.10903. 2017. · arXiv
  14. Wang M, Yu L, Zheng D et al. Deep graph library: towards efficient and scalable deep learning on graphs, arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.01315 2019 · arXiv
  15. Bergstra J, Yamins D, Cox DD. Hyperopt: A python library for optimizing the hyperparameters of machine learning algorithms. In: Proceedings of the 12th Python in science conference. 2013, p. 13-20. Citeseer
  16. Lundberg SM, Lee S-I. A unified approach to interpreting model predic- tions. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems. 2017, p. 4765-4774
  17. Li R, Wang S, Zhu F et al. Adaptive graph convolutional neural networks, arXiv preprint arXiv:1801.03226 2018 · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Jiang, D., Wu, Z., Hsieh, C.-Y., Chen, G., Liao, B., Wang, Z., Shen, C., Cao, D., Wu, J., & Hou, T.
Affiliations
  • Zhejiang University (CN)
  • Tencent (China) (CN)
  • Shenzhen Institutes of Advanced Technology (CN)
  • Central South University (CN)
Corresponding author
  • Cao, Dongsheng
  • Wu, Jian
  • Hou, Tingjun
Venue
Journal of Cheminformatics
Published
2020-09-28
Volume
13
Issue
1
Pages
12-12
ISSN
1758-2946 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3116202926
Cited by
664
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 108 · 2025: 141 · 2024: 163 · 2023: 117 · 2022: 94 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 1
FWCI
54.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cheminformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Natural Science Foundation of China (21575128, 81,773,632, 2020C03010, LZ19H300001)
  • Natural Science Foundation of Zhejiang Province (LZ19H300001, 2020C03010)
  • Key Research and Development Program of Zhejiang Province (2020C03010)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Machine Learning in Materials Science
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Discrete Mathematics and Combinatorics › Graph theory and applications
Keywords
graph neural networks, molecular descriptors, molecular property prediction, drug discovery, virtual screening, HIV, SHAP, computational efficiency, GCN, GAT, SVM, XGBoost, random forest

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