The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Equivariant Graph Neural Networks for Toxicity Prediction
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1021/acs.chemrestox.3c00032 · Paper page
Abstract
Predictive modeling for toxicity is a crucial step in the drug discovery pipeline. It can help filter out molecules with a high probability of failing in the early stages of de novo drug design. Thus, several machine learning (ML) models have been developed to predict the toxicity of molecules by combining classical ML techniques or deep neural networks with well-known molecular representations such as fingerprints, InChi keys, SMILES strings, or 2D-graphs. Since molecules live in the physical 3D space, it is expected that their more natural and accurate representation would be defined in this geometric space as in ab initio methods for computing physicochemical properties. In such space, these molecules are also subject to geometric symmetries that only adequate 3D molecular representations can capture. Hence, the implications of using 3D structures in toxicity predictive modeling is an essential yet open question that needs further investigation. Recent studies showed great success in using equivariant graph neural networks (EGNNs) for representation learning based on 3D structures to predict potential energy surfaces and physicochemical properties of organic molecules and materials. Inspired by this, we investigate the performance of EG-NNs to construct reliable ML models for toxicity prediction. We use the equivariant transformer (ET) model in TorchMD-NET, an SE(3)-equivariant attention-weighted message-passing neural network. Eleven different toxicity datasets taken from Molecu-leNet, Therapeutic Data Commons (TDC), and ToxBenchmark have been considered to evaluate the capability of ET for toxicity prediction. Our results show that ET adequately learns 3D representations of molecules that can be successfully correlated with toxicity activity, achieving good accuracies on most datasets comparable to state-of-the-art 2D graph-based models and significantly better than a SMILES-based trans-former model. However, exhaustive (single- and multi-) conformational analysis has revealed a lack of correlation between the conformational samples and the predictive performance, which we find is only slightly affected by the conformer selection. Moreover, combining toxicity prediction in a multi-task setting with a neural network potential (energy prediction), or adding the total energy of the respective molecule as an additional node feature (besides atom types), does not benefit or even decrease the model's performance throughout all datasets. This suggests that a physicochemical property, such as the total energy, can not be related to toxicity activity with the selected ML method. We also provide an attention weight analysis for helping to explain the black-box toxicity prediction of our model in 3D space and, thus, increase reliability in ML models. In summary, our findings highlight the relevance of considering 3D geometry information in EGNNs and provide a straightforward way to integrate molecular conformers into ML-based pipelines for toxicity prediction.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Cremer, J., Sandonas, L. M., Tkatchenko, A., Clevert, D.-A., & de Fabritiis, G.
- Affiliations
- Universitat Pompeu Fabra (ES)
- University of Luxembourg
- University of Luxembourg (LU)
- Pfizer (Germany)
- Pompeu Fabra University
- Corresponding author
- Cremer, Julian
- Venue
- Chemical Research in Toxicology
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2023-02-07
- ISSN
- 0893-228X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10583285
- OpenAlex
- W4386587901
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 8.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Chemical Research in Toxicology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Repositori digital de la UPF (Universitat Pompeu Fabra) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Université du Luxembourg
- European Commission (MCIN /AEI/ 10.13039/501100011033, 956832, 10.13039/501100011033, 13039/501100011033, 501100011033, HORIZON2020, 823712, /AEI/10.13039/501100011033)
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (PID2020-116564GB-I00)
- Agencia Estatal de Investigación (AEI//10.13039/501100011033/, 501100011033, 10.13039/501100011033, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/501 100 011 033, 13039, PID2020-116564GB-I00, .13039/501100011033, MCIN / AEI/10, 10.13039, AEI/10)
- H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (956832, MCIN/AEI/10.13039/ 501100011033)
- H2020 Research Infrastructures (823712)
- 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 › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
- Keywords
- equivariant graph neural networks, toxicity prediction, molecular conformers, explainability, physicochemical properties, drug discovery
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