CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 32

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 11 of the 11 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

AtomNet: A Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Bioactivity Prediction in Structure-based Drug Discovery

Wallach, Izhar, Dzamba, Michael, Heifets, Abraham·2015·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1510.02855arXiv 1510.02855
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Deep convolutional neural networks comprise a subclass of deep neural networks (DNN) with a constrained architecture that leverages the spatial and temporal structure of the domain they model. Convolutional networks achieve the best predictive performance in areas such as speech and image recognition by hierarchically composing simple local features into complex models. Although DNNs have been used in drug discovery for QSAR and ligand-based bioactivity predictions, none of these models have benefited from this powerful convolutional architecture. This paper introduces AtomNet, the first structure-based, deep convolutional neural network designed to predict the bioactivity of small molecules for drug discovery applications. We demonstrate how to apply the convolutional concepts of feature locality and hierarchical composition to the modeling of bioactivity and chemical interactions. In further contrast to existing DNN techniques, we show that AtomNet's application of local convolutional filters to structural target information successfully predicts new active molecules for targets with no previously known modulators. Finally, we show that AtomNet outperforms previous docking approaches on a diverse set of benchmarks by a large margin, achieving an AUC greater than 0.9 on 57.8% of the targets in the DUDE benchmark.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1510.02855

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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?

  • AtomNet, a deep CNN, outperforms conventional docking models in accuracy with an AUC of 0.9 or more for 58% of targets.

    “For instance, Wallach and Dzamba build AtomNet, a deep CNN to predict the bioactivity of small molecule drugs for drug discovery applications. The authors showed that AtomNet outperforms conventional docking models in relation to accuracy with an AUC (area under the curve) of 0.9 or more for 58% of the targets [25].”

    From The rise of artificial intelligence in healthcare applications (2020) · cites this paper as [25]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. D. B. Kitchen, H. Decornez, J. R. Furr, and J. Bajorath, "Docking and scoring in virtual screen- ing for drug discovery: methods and applications.," Nat. Rev. Drug Discov., vol. 3, no. 11, pp. 935-949, 2004.
  2. C. Szegedy, W. Liu, Y. Jia, P. Sermanet, S. Reed, D. Anguelov, D. Erhan, V. Vanhoucke, and A. Rabinovich, "Going deeper with convolutions," CoRR, vol. abs/1409.4842, 2014. · arXiv
  3. J. Yosinski, J. Clune, A. Nguyen, T. Fuchs, and H. Lipson, "Understanding neural networks through deep visualization," arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.06579, 2015. · arXiv
  4. C. Bissantz, B. Kuhn, and M. Stahl, "A medicinal chemists guide to molecular interactions," Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 14, pp. 5061-5084, 2010.
  5. G. E. Dahl, N. Jaitly, and R. Salakhutdinov, "Multi-task neural networks for QSAR predic- tions," CoRR, vol. abs/1406.1231, 2014. · arXiv
  6. J. Ma, R. P. Sheridan, A. Liaw, G. E. Dahl, and V. Svetnik, "Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structureactivity relationships," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 55, no. 2, pp. 263-274, 2015.
  7. B. Ramsundar, S. Kearnes, P. Riley, D. Webster, D. Konerding, and V. Pande, "Massively Multitask Networks for Drug Discovery," ArXiv e-prints, Feb. 2015.
  8. Y. Wang, J. Xiao, T. O. Suzek, J. Zhang, J. Wang, Z. Zhou, L. Han, K. Karapetyan, S. Dracheva, B. A. Shoemaker, E. Bolton, A. Gindulyte, and S. H. Bryant, "Pubchem's bioassay database," Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 40, no. D1, pp. D400-D412, 2012.
  9. A. P. Bento, A. Gaulton, A. Hersey, L. J. Bellis, J. Chambers, M. Davies, F. A. Krger, Y. Light, L. Mak, S. McGlinchey, M. Nowotka, G. Papadatos, R. Santos, and J. P. Overington, "The chembl bioactivity database: an update," Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 42, no. D1, pp. D1083- D1090, 2014.
  10. S. G. Rohrer and K. Baumann, "Maximum unbiased validation (muv) data sets for virtual screening based on pubchem bioactivity data," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 169-184, 2009.
  11. J. Xia, H. Jin, Z. Liu, L. Zhang, and X. S. Wang, "An unbiased method to build benchmark- ing sets for ligand-based virtual screening and its application to gpcrs," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 54, no. 5, pp. 1433-1450, 2014.
  12. D. Rogers and M. Hahn, "Extended-connectivity fingerprints," Journal of Chemical Informa- tion and Modeling, vol. 50, no. 5, pp. 742-754, 2010.
  13. Y. Hu, N. Furtmann, M. Gtschow, and J. Bajorath, "Systematic identification and classification of three-dimensional activity cliffs," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1490-1498, 2012.
  14. I. Wallach and R. Lilien, "Virtual Decoy Sets for Molecular Docking Benchmarks," J Chem. Inf. and Model., vol. 51, no. 2, pp. 196-202, 2011.
  15. J. B. Baell and G. A. Holloway, "New substructure filters for removal of pan assay interference compounds (pains) from screening libraries and for their exclusion in bioassays," Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 53, no. 7, pp. 2719-2740, 2010.
  16. R. F. Bruns and I. A. Watson, "Rules for identifying potentially reactive or promiscuous com- pounds," Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 55, no. 22, pp. 9763-9772, 2012.
  17. T. U. Consortium, "Uniprot: a hub for protein information," Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 43, no. D1, pp. D204-D212, 2015.
  18. G. W. Bemis and M. A. Murcko, "The properties of known drugs. 1. molecular frameworks," Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 39, no. 15, pp. 2887-2893, 1996.
  19. V. Nair and G. E. Hinton, "Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines," in Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-10), June 21- 24, 2010, Haifa, Israel, pp. 807-814, 2010.
  20. M. Hendlich, F. Rippmann, and G. Barnickel, "Ligsite: automatic and efficient detection of potential small molecule-binding sites in proteins.," J. Mol. Graph. Model., vol. 15, no. 6, 1997.
  21. C. Da and D. Kireev, "Structural proteinligand interaction fingerprints (splif) for structure- based virtual screening: Method and benchmark study," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 54, no. 9, pp. 2555-2561, 2014.
  22. Z. Deng, C. Chuaqui, and J. Singh, "Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions.," J. Med. Chem., vol. 47, no. 2, pp. 337-344, 2004.
  23. V. I. Prez-Nueno, O. Rabal, J. I. Borrell, and J. Teixid, "Apif: A new interaction fingerprint based on atom pairs and its application to virtual screening," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 1245-1260, 2009.
  24. D. E. Rumelhart, G. E. Hinton, and R. J. Williams, "Neurocomputing: Foundations of re- search," ch. Learning Representations by Back-propagating Errors, pp. 696-699, Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press, 1988.
  25. D. R. Koes, M. P. Baumgartner, and C. J. Camacho, "Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the csar 2011 benchmarking exercise," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1893-1904, 2013.
  26. M. M. Mysinger and B. K. Shoichet, "Rapid context-dependent ligand desolvation in molecular docking," Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 50, no. 9, pp. 1561-1573, 2010.
  27. R. Spitzer and A. Jain, "Surflex-dock: Docking benchmarks and real-world application," Jour- nal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 687-699, 2012.
  28. R. Coleman, T. Sterling, and D. Weiss, "Sampl4 & dock3.7: lessons for automated docking procedures," Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 201-209, 2014.
  29. R. G. Coleman, M. Carchia, T. Sterling, J. J. Irwin, and B. K. Shoichet, "Ligand pose and orientational sampling in molecular docking," PLoS ONE, vol. 8, p. e75992, 10 2013.
  30. W. J. Allen, T. E. Balius, S. Mukherjee, S. R. Brozell, D. T. Moustakas, P. T. Lang, D. A. Case, I. D. Kuntz, and R. C. Rizzo, "Dock 6: Impact of new features and current docking performance," Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 36, no. 15, pp. 1132-1156, 2015.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wallach, I., Dzamba, M., & Heifets, A.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2015
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1510.02855
arXiv
1510.02855
References
11
Type
Preprint
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/

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