Physicochemical graph neural network for learning protein–ligand interaction fingerprints from sequence data

Machine Learning


  • Kitchen, D. B., Decornez, H., Furr, J. R. & Bajorath, J. Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 935–949 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopkins, A. L. Predicting promiscuity. Nature 462, 167–168 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, L. et al. TransformerCPI: improving compound–protein interaction prediction by sequence-based deep learning with self-attention mechanism and label reversal experiments. Bioinformatics 36, 4406–4414 (2020).

    Article 
    MathSciNet 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, M. et al. Drug–target affinity prediction using graph neural network and contact maps. RSC Adv. 10, 20701–20712 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagherian, M. et al. Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper. Brief. Bioinform. 22, 247–269 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, S. et al. Structure-aware interactive graph neural networks for the prediction of protein–ligand binding affinity. In Proc. 27th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 975–985 (Association for Computing Machinery, 2021).

  • Dhakal, A., McKay, C., Tanner, J. J. & Cheng, J. Artificial intelligence in the prediction of protein–ligand interactions: recent advances and future directions. Brief. Bioinform. 23, bbab476 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lu, W. et al. TANKBind: trigonometry-aware neural networks for drug–protein binding structure prediction. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 35, 7236–7249 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bai, P., Miljković, F., John, B. & Lu, H. Interpretable bilinear attention network with domain adaptation improves drug–target prediction. Nat. Mach. Intell. 5, 126–136 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ng, H. W. et al. Competitive molecular docking approach for predicting estrogen receptor subtype α agonists and antagonists. BMC Bioinf. 15, S4 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, D., Gao, Z.-G., Moss, S. M., Jacobson, K. A. & Carlsson, J. Molecular docking screening using agonist-bound GPCR structures: probing the A2A adenosine receptor. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 550–563 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Kooistra, A. J., Leurs, R., de Esch, I. J. P. & de Graaf, C. Structure-based prediction of G-protein-coupled receptor ligand function: a β-adrenoceptor case study. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55, 1045–1061 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, T., Abbu, K. A., Liu, Y. & Xie, L. DeepREAL: a deep learning powered multi-scale modeling framework for predicting out-of-distribution ligand-induced GPCR activity. Bioinformatics 38, 2561–2570 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Michel, M., Menéndez Hurtado, D. & Elofsson, A. PconsC4: fast, accurate and hassle-free contact predictions. Bioinformatics 35, 2677–2679 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rao, R., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Ovchinnikov, S. & Rives, A. Transformer protein language models are unsupervised structure learners. In Proc. 8th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2020).

  • Lin, Z. et al. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science 379, 1123–1130 (2023).

    Article 
    MathSciNet 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, M. et al. Sequence-based drug-target affinity prediction using weighted graph neural networks. BMC Genomics 23, 449 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wang, P. et al. Structure-aware multimodal deep learning for drug–protein interaction prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 62, 1308–1317 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gainza, P. et al. Deciphering interaction fingerprints from protein molecular surfaces using geometric deep learning. Nat. Methods 17, 184–192 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, F. et al. Benchmarking AlphaFold‐enabled molecular docking predictions for antibiotic discovery. Mol. Syst. Biol. 18, e11081 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • He, X. et al. AlphaFold2 versus experimental structures: evaluation on G protein-coupled receptors. Acta Pharmacol. Sin. 44, 1–7 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, T. et al. GraphDTA: predicting drug–target binding affinity with graph neural networks. Bioinformatics 37, 1140–1147 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Corso, G., Stärk, H., Jing, B., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. S. DiffDock: diffusion steps, twists, and turns for molecular docking. In Proc. 10th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2020).

  • Somnath, V. R., Bunne, C. & Krause, A. Multi-scale representation learning on proteins. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 34, 25244–25255 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  • Corso, G., Cavalleri, L., Beaini, D., Liò, P. & Veličković, P. Principal neighbourhood aggregation for graph nets. Adv. Neural Inf. Process. Syst. 33, 13260–13271 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  • Rarey, M. & Dixon, J. S. Feature trees: a new molecular similarity measure based on tree matching. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 12, 471–490 (1998).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, W., Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T. Junction tree variational autoencoder for molecular graph generation. In Proc. 35th International Conference on Machine Learning 2323–2332 (PMLR, 2018).

  • Bianchi, F. M., Grattarola, D. & Alippi, C. Spectral clustering with graph neural networks for graph pooling. In Proc. 37th International Conference on Machine Learning 874–883 (PMLR, 2020).

  • Su, M. et al. Comparative assessment of scoring functions: the CASF-2016 update. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59, 895–913 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stärk, H., Ganea, O., Pattanaik, L., Barzilay, D. R. & Jaakkola, T. EquiBind: geometric deep learning for drug binding structure prediction. In Proc. 39th International Conference on Machine Learning 20503–20521 (PMLR, 2022).

  • Huang, K., Xiao, C., Glass, L. M. & Sun, J. MolTrans: molecular interaction transformer for drug–target interaction prediction. Bioinformatics 37, 830–836 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zitnik, M., Sosič, R., Maheshwari, S. & Leskovec, J. BioSNAP Datasets: Stanford Biomedical Network Dataset Collection (Stanford Univ., 2018); https://snap.stanford.edu/biodata

  • Liu, T., Lin, Y., Wen, X., Jorissen, R. N. & Gilson, M. K. BindingDB: a web-accessible database of experimentally determined protein–ligand binding affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 35, D198–D201 (2007).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z. et al. PDB-wide collection of binding data: current status of the PDBbind database. Bioinformatics 31, 405–412 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sun, J. et al. ExCAPE-DB: an integrated large scale dataset facilitating big data analysis in chemogenomics. J. Cheminform. 9, 17 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Béquignon, O. J. M. et al. Papyrus: a large-scale curated dataset aimed at bioactivity predictions. J. Cheminform. 15, 3 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cortellis Drug Discovery Intelligence (Clarivate, 2023); https://www.cortellis.com/drugdiscovery/

  • Lin, H. et al. Discovery of potent and selective covalent protein arginine methyltransferase 5 (PRMT5) inhibitors. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. 10, 1033–1038 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rusere, L. N. et al. HIV-1 protease inhibitors incorporating stereochemically defined P2′ ligands to optimize hydrogen bonding in the substrate envelope. J. Med. Chem. 62, 8062–8079 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yilmaz, N. K., Swanstrom, R. & Schiffer, C. A. Improving viral protease inhibitors to counter drug resistance. Trends Microbiol. 24, 547–557 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper-Joyce, C. J. et al. Structure of the adenosine-bound human adenosine A1 receptor–Gi complex. Nature 558, 559–563 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mendez, D. et al. ChEMBL: towards direct deposition of bioassay data. Nucleic Acids Res. 47, D930–D940 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bento, A. P. et al. An open source chemical structure curation pipeline using RDKit. J. Cheminform. 12, 51 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Nguyen, A. T. N. et al. Extracellular loop 2 of the adenosine A1 receptor has a key role in orthosteric ligand affinity and agonist efficacy. Mol. Pharmacol. 90, 703–714 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Roth, B. L., Sheffler, D. J. & Kroeze, W. K. Magic shotguns versus magic bullets: selectively non-selective drugs for mood disorders and schizophrenia. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 3, 353–359 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Harding, S. D. et al. The IUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY in 2024. Nucleic Acids Res. 52, D1438–D1449 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jacobson, K. A. & Gao, Z.-G. Adenosine receptors as therapeutic targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 5, 247–264 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Perreira, M. et al. “Reversine” and its 2-substituted adenine derivatives as potent and selective A3 adenosine receptor antagonists. J. Med. Chem. 48, 4910–4918 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Glukhova, A. et al. Structure of the adenosine A1 receptor reveals the basis for subtype selectivity. Cell 168, 867–877.e13 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Deng, Z., Chuaqui, C. & Singh, J. Structural Interaction Fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein−ligand binding interactions. J. Med. Chem. 47, 337–344 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Thal, D. M. et al. Recent advances in the determination of G protein-coupled receptor structures. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 51, 28–34 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Draper-Joyce, C. J. et al. Positive allosteric mechanisms of adenosine A1 receptor-mediated analgesia. Nature 597, 571–576 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrey Conn, P., Christopoulos, A. & Lindsley, C. W. Allosteric modulators of GPCRs: a novel approach for the treatment of CNS disorders. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 8, 41–54 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Freitas, R. Fde & Schapira, M. A systematic analysis of atomic protein–ligand interactions in the PDB. MedChemComm 8, 1970–1981 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Krivák, R. & Hoksza, D. P2Rank: machine learning based tool for rapid and accurate prediction of ligand binding sites from protein structure. J. Cheminform. 10, 39 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cai, T. et al. GraphNorm: a principled approach to accelerating graph neural network training. In Proc. 38th International Conference on Machine Learning 1204–1215 (PMLR, 2021).

  • Kingma, D. P. & Ba, J. Adam: a method for stochastic optimization. In Proc. 3rd International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2015).

  • Loshchilov, I. & Hutter, F. Decoupled weight decay regularization. In Proc. 6th International Conference on Learning Representations (ICLR, 2018).

  • Khazanov, N. A. & Carlson, H. A. Exploring the composition of protein–ligand binding sites on a large scale. PLoS Comput. Biol. 9, e1003321 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Baltos, J.-A. et al. Quantification of adenosine A1 receptor biased agonism: implications for drug discovery. Biochem. Pharmacol. 99, 101–112 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Berman, H. M. et al. The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2023. Nucleic Acids Res. 51, D523–D531 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Béquignon, O. J. M. et al. Accompanying data – Papyrus – a large scale curated dataset aimed at bioactivity predictions. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10943207 (2024).

  • Koh, H. Y., Nguyen, A. T. N., Pan, S., May, L. T. & Webb, G. I. Datasets for “Physicochemical graph neural network for learning protein–ligand interaction fingerprints from sequence data”. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10901712 (2024).

  • Koh, H. Y. huankoh/PSICHIC: v1.0.0. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10901685 (2024).

  • Stepniewska-Dziubinska, M. M., Zielenkiewicz, P. & Siedlecki, P. Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein–ligand binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics 34, 3666–3674 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zheng, L., Fan, J. & Mu, Y. OnionNet: a multiple-layer intermolecular-contact-based convolutional neural network for protein–ligand binding affinity prediction. ACS Omega 4, 15956–15965 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jiang, D. et al. InteractionGraphNet: a novel and efficient deep graph representation learning framework for accurate protein–ligand interaction predictions. J. Med. Chem. 64, 18209–18232 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Koes, D. R., Baumgartner, M. P. & Camacho, C. J. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1893–1904 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • McNutt, A. T. et al. GNINA 1.0: molecular docking with deep learning. J. Cheminform. 13, 43 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sverrisson, F., Feydy, J., Correia, B. E. & Bronstein, M. M. Fast end-to-end learning on protein surfaces. In Proc. 2021 IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) 15272–15281 (IEEE, 2021).

  • Roy, K. et al. Some case studies on application of “rm2” metrics for judging quality of quantitative structure–activity relationship predictions: emphasis on scaling of response data. J. Comput. Chem. 34, 1071–1082 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • McInnes, L., Healy, J., Saul, N. & Großberger, L. UMAP: uniform manifold approximation and projection. J. Open Source Softw. 3, 861 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Adasme, M. F. et al. PLIP 2021: expanding the scope of the protein–ligand interaction profiler to DNA and RNA. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, W530–W534 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 



  • Source link

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *