PreprintCited by 62Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceAdvanced Chemical Physics Studies

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 access
Cremer, Julian, Sandonas, Leonardo Medrano, Tkatchenko, Alexandre, Clevert, Djork-Arne, de Fabritiis, Gianni·2023·Chemical Research in Toxicology

Preprint — 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 or 2D graphs. But the more natural, accurate representation of molecules is expected to be defined in physical 3D space like in ab initio methods. Recent studies successfully used equivariant graph neural networks (EGNNs) for representation learning based on 3D structures to predict quantum mechanical properties of molecules. Inspired by this, we investigate the performance of EGNNs to construct reliable ML models for toxicity prediction. We use the equivariant transformer (ET) model in TorchMD-NET for this. Eleven toxicity datasets taken from MoleculeNet, TDCommons, 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 successfully correlate with toxicity activity, achieving good accuracies on most datasets comparable to state-of-the-art models. We also test a physicochemical property, namely the total energy of a molecule, to inform the toxicity prediction with a physical prior. However, our work suggests these two properties can not be related. We also provide an attention weight analysis for helping to understand the toxicity prediction in 3D space and, thus, increase the explainability of the ML model. In summary, our findings offer promising insights considering 3D geometry information via EGNNs and provide a straightforward way to integrate molecular conformers into ML-based pipelines for predicting and investigating toxicity prediction in physical space. We expect that in the future, especially for larger, more diverse datasets, EGNNs will be an essential tool in this domain.

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 · 10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-9kb55-v2

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Overview of the method used in this work. An equivariant transformer graph neural network28 is applied to 3D conformers for toxicity prediction. The model uses scalar (pink) as well as vector features (brown) as node embeddings for messages in every message-passing step. A gated equivariant block16 combines both scalar and vector features and outputs a molecular descriptor that here is used to predict toxicity.
Figure 1 Overview of the method used in this work. An equivariant transformer graph neural network28 is applied to 3D conformers for toxicity prediction. The model uses scalar (pink) as well as vector features (brown) as node embeddings for messages in every message-passing step. A gated equivariant block16 combines both scalar and vector features and outputs a molecular descriptor that here is used to predict toxicity.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 (a, b) Performance of ET, ET augmented with energies, and a SMILES-based transformer on the TDCommons and ToxBenchmark data sets. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars. The metric of LD50 (b) is the mean absolute error (MAE), so lower is better. Otherwise, higher is better. (c, d) ET (c) and SMILES-Transformer (d) performance on LD50 compared to the ground truth labels. The brighter the color, the more predicted points. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.
Figure 2 (a, b) Performance of ET, ET augmented with energies, and a SMILES-based transformer on the TDCommons and ToxBenchmark data sets. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars. The metric of LD50 (b) is the mean absolute error (MAE), so lower is better. Otherwise, higher is better. (c, d) ET (c) and SMILES-Transformer (d) performance on LD50 compared to the ground truth labels. The brighter the color, the more predicted points. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 (a) Performance of ET, ET augmented with energies, and a SMILES-based transformer on the MoleculeNet data sets. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars. (b) Performance of ET on different data set splitting methods. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.
Figure 3 (a) Performance of ET, ET augmented with energies, and a SMILES-based transformer on the MoleculeNet data sets. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars. (b) Performance of ET on different data set splitting methods. We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 (a) Label distribution on the Tox21 data set for all 12 tasks. (b) Performance of ET compared to a SMILES-based transformer for all 12 tasks of Tox21 (scaffold split). We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.
Figure 4 (a) Label distribution on the Tox21 data set for all 12 tasks. (b) Performance of ET compared to a SMILES-based transformer for all 12 tasks of Tox21 (scaffold split). We report the standard deviation for five different seed runs as error bars.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Heat maps of attention scores on the (a) Ames and (b) LD50 test sets. The darker the color, the more attention the model gives on average to atom Zi attending to atom Zj. Here, the attention scores are calculated based on attention rollout58 and, in the end, summed up for every atom type.
Figure 5 Heat maps of attention scores on the (a) Ames and (b) LD50 test sets. The darker the color, the more attention the model gives on average to atom Zi attending to atom Zj. Here, the attention scores are calculated based on attention rollout58 and, in the end, summed up for every atom type.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Visualization of attention weights using Attention rollout58 on (a) Ames, (b) LD50, and (c) Tox21 test sets. The thickness of the attention lines encodes the amplitude of attention. The dashed circles highlight chemically important functional groups that are also recognized by the network: hydrophobic atoms, electron-donating groups, electron-withdrawing groups, and polar groups.
Figure 6 Visualization of attention weights using Attention rollout58 on (a) Ames, (b) LD50, and (c) Tox21 test sets. The thickness of the attention lines encodes the amplitude of attention. The dashed circles highlight chemically important functional groups that are also recognized by the network: hydrophobic atoms, electron-donating groups, electron-withdrawing groups, and polar groups.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Predictive performance of ET on (a) Ames, Tox21, and (b) LD50 as a function of the cutoff distance used in the message-passing layers. We report the standard deviation for five seed runs with a shaded area.
Figure 7 Predictive performance of ET on (a) Ames, Tox21, and (b) LD50 as a function of the cutoff distance used in the message-passing layers. We report the standard deviation for five seed runs with a shaded area.CC BY · PubMed Central

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

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

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
Published
2023-07-17
ISSN
0893-228X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4386587901
Cited by
62
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 4
FWCI
8.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
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