PreprintCited by 8Computational Drug Discovery MethodsMachine Learning in Materials ScienceProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Docking-informed machine learning for kinome wide affinity prediction

Open access
Schifferstein, Jordy, Bernatavicius, Andrius, Janssen, Antonius P.A.·2024·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Preprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01260 · Paper page

Abstract

Kinase inhibitors are an important class of anti-cancer drugs, with 80 inhibitors clinically approved, and >100 in active clinical testing. Most bind competitively in the ATP-binding site, leading to challenges with selectivity for a specific kinase, resulting in risks for toxicity and general off-target effects. Assessing the binding of an inhibitor for the entire kinome is experimentally possible but expensive. A reliable and interpretable computational prediction of kinase selectivity would greatly benefit the inhibitor discovery and optimisation process. Here, we use machine learning on docked poses to address this need. To this end, we aggregated all known inhibitor-kinase affinities and generated the complete accompanying 3D interactome by docking all inhibitors to the respective high quality X-ray structures. We then used this resource to train a neural network as a kinase-specific scoring function, which achieved an overall performance (R²) of 0.63-0.74 on unseen inhibitors across the kinome. The entire pipeline from molecule to 3D-based affinity prediction has been fully automated and wrapped in a freely available package. This has a graphical user interface which is tightly integrated with PyMOL to allow immediate adoption in the medicinal chemistry practice.

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-2024-46rxl

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Kinase activity data set | A) Distribution of kinase inhibition values reported per kinase group; B) Distribution of the reported inhibitory values; C) Number of pChEMBL values for unique kinases reported per kinase inhibitor, i.e., against how many kinases was a compound tested; D) Number of reported inhibitors per kinase, i.e., how many compounds were tested for a kinase; E) Overview of the workflow of the work in this paper.
Figure 1 Kinase activity data set | A) Distribution of kinase inhibition values reported per kinase group; B) Distribution of the reported inhibitory values; C) Number of pChEMBL values for unique kinases reported per kinase inhibitor, i.e., against how many kinases was a compound tested; D) Number of reported inhibitors per kinase, i.e., how many compounds were tested for a kinase; E) Overview of the workflow of the work in this paper.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Correlation of Vina and RFScoreVS scoring functions with Papyrus pChEMBL data | Predicted affinity values vs literature values displayed as logarithmic hexbin plots, as based on the -Vina score for all VinaGPU poses (A), RFScoreVS for all VinaGPU poses (B), RFScoreVS for all DiffDock poses (C), R2 calculated per kinase and aggregated per kinase group for Vina scores (D), RFScoreVS for VinaGPU poses (E) and RFScoreVS for DiffDock poses (F).
Figure 2 Correlation of Vina and RFScoreVS scoring functions with Papyrus pChEMBL data | Predicted affinity values vs literature values displayed as logarithmic hexbin plots, as based on the -Vina score for all VinaGPU poses (A), RFScoreVS for all VinaGPU poses (B), RFScoreVS for all DiffDock poses (C), R2 calculated per kinase and aggregated per kinase group for Vina scores (D), RFScoreVS for VinaGPU poses (E) and RFScoreVS for DiffDock poses (F).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Model performance | Predicted affinity values vs literature values for the compounds-split test set displayed as logarithmic hexbin plots, as based on predictions for ECFP models (A), the DNN trained on DiffDock poses (B) and on the VinaGPU poses (C). Panels D, E and F show the average performance per kinase group for ECFP, DiffDock and VinaGPU models, respectively.
Figure 3 Model performance | Predicted affinity values vs literature values for the compounds-split test set displayed as logarithmic hexbin plots, as based on predictions for ECFP models (A), the DNN trained on DiffDock poses (B) and on the VinaGPU poses (C). Panels D, E and F show the average performance per kinase group for ECFP, DiffDock and VinaGPU models, respectively.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 A user-friendly application: KinaseDocker2 | (A) Schematic overview of the software setup; (B) screenshots of the Graphical User Interface of KinaseDocker2 showing the initial configuration and kinase selection screens, as well as the result after running the program. The prediction results are shown in a table on screen, with the affinity value (avg_score) and details of the docking run. Docked complexes can be loaded in 3D for further assessment.
Figure 4 A user-friendly application: KinaseDocker2 | (A) Schematic overview of the software setup; (B) screenshots of the Graphical User Interface of KinaseDocker2 showing the initial configuration and kinase selection screens, as well as the result after running the program. The prediction results are shown in a table on screen, with the affinity value (avg_score) and details of the docking run. Docked complexes can be loaded in 3D for further assessment.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
Schifferstein, J., Bernatavicius, A., & Janssen, A. P. A.
Affiliations
Leiden University (NL)
Corresponding author
Janssen, Antonius P.A.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Published
2024-04-03
Volume
64
Issue
24
Pages
9196-9204
ISSN
1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4405222290
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Oncode Institute
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › 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
kinase inhibitors, kinase selectivity, binding affinity prediction, inhibitor discovery, off-target toxicity, X-ray structure
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Binding Sites, Humans, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Protein Kinases, Protein Kinase Inhibitors, Molecular Docking Simulation

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