There is a growing body of evidence showing that machine learning regression results in more accurate structure-based prediction of protein-ligand binding affinity. Docking methods that aim at optimizing the affinity of ligands for a target rely on how accurate their predicted ranking is. However, despite their proven advantages, machine-learning scoring functions are still not widely applied. This seems to be due to insufficient understanding of their properties and the lack of user-friendly software implementing them. Here we present a study where the accuracy of AutoDock Vina, arguably the most commonly-used docking software, is strongly improved by following a machine learning approach. We also analyse the factors that are responsible for this improvement and their generality. Most importantly, with the help of a proposed benchmark, we demonstrate that this improvement will be larger as more data becomes available for training Random Forest models, as regression models implying additive functional forms do not improve with more training data. We discuss how the latter opens the door to new opportunities in scoring function development. In order to facilitate the translation of this advance to enhance structure-based molecular design, we provide software to directly re-score Vina-generated poses and thus strongly improve their predicted binding affinity. The software is available at http://istar.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/rf-score-3.tgz and http://crcm. marseille.inserm.fr/fileadmin/rf-score-3.tgz.

Protein-ligand docking is a key computational method in the design of starting points for the drug discovery process. We are motivated by the desire to automate large-scale docking using our popular docking engine idock and thus have developed a publicly-accessible web platform called istar. Without tedious software installation, users can submit jobs using our website. Our istar website supports 1) filtering ligands by desired molecular properties and previewing the number of ligands to dock, 2) monitoring job progress in real time, and 3) visualizing ligand conformations and outputting free energy and ligand efficiency predicted by idock, binding affinity predicted by RF-Score, putative hydrogen bonds, and supplier information for easy purchase, three useful features commonly lacked on other online docking platforms like DOCK Blaster or iScreen. We have collected 17,224,424 ligands from the All Clean subset of the ZINC database, and revamped our docking engine idock to version 2.0, further improving docking speed and accuracy, and integrating RF-Score as an alternative rescoring function. To compare idock 2.0 with the state-of-the-art AutoDock Vina 1.1.2, we have carried out a rescoring benchmark and a redocking benchmark on the 2,897 and 343 protein-ligand complexes of PDBbind v2012 refined set and CSAR NRC HiQ Set 24Sept2010 respectively, and an execution time benchmark on 12 diverse proteins and 3,000 ligands of different molecular weight. Results show that, under various scenarios, idock achieves comparable success rates while outperforming AutoDock Vina in terms of docking speed by at least 8.69 times and at most 37.51 times. When evaluated on the PDBbind v2012 core set, our istar platform combining with RF-Score manages to reproduce Pearson's correlation coefficient and Spearman's correlation coefficient of as high as 0.855 and 0.859 respectively between the experimental binding affinity and the predicted binding affinity of the docked conformation. istar is freely available at http://istar.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/idock.

Molecular docking can be used to predict how strongly small‐molecule binders and their chemical derivatives bind to a macromolecular target using its available three‐dimensional structures. Scoring functions (SFs) are employed to rank these molecules by their predicted binding affinity (potency). A classical SF assumes a predetermined theory‐inspired functional form for the relationship between the features characterizing the structure of the protein–ligand complex and its predicted binding affinity (this relationship is almost always assumed to be linear). Recent years have seen the prosperity of machine‐learning SFs, which are fast regression models built instead with contemporary supervised learning algorithms. In this review, we analyzed machine‐learning SFs for drug lead optimization in the 2015–2019 period. The performance gap between classical and machine‐learning SFs was large and has now broadened owing to methodological improvements and the availability of more training data. Against the expectations of many experts, SFs employing deep learning techniques were not always more predictive than those based on more established machine learning techniques and, when they were, the performance gain was small. More codes and webservers are available and ready to be applied to prospective structure‐based drug lead optimization studies. These have exhibited excellent predictive accuracy in compelling retrospective tests, outperforming in some cases much more computationally demanding molecular simulation‐based methods. A discussion of future work completes this review. This article is categorized under: Computer and Information Science > Chemoinformatics

No abstract

Background Understanding the phenotypic drug response on cancer cell lines plays a vital role in anti-cancer drug discovery and re-purposing. The Genomics of Drug Sensitivity in Cancer (GDSC) database provides open data for researchers in phenotypic screening to build and test their models. Previously, most research in these areas starts from the molecular fingerprints or physiochemical features of drugs, instead of their structures. Results In this paper, a model called twin Convolutional Neural Network for drugs in SMILES format (tCNNS) is introduced for phenotypic screening. tCNNS uses a convolutional network to extract features for drugs from their simplified molecular input line entry specification (SMILES) format and uses another convolutional network to extract features for cancer cell lines from the genetic feature vectors respectively. After that, a fully connected network is used to predict the interaction between the drugs and the cancer cell lines. When the training set and the testing set are divided based on the interaction pairs between drugs and cell lines, tCNNS achieves 0.826, 0.831 for the mean and top quartile of the coefficient of determinant ( R 2 ) respectively and 0.909, 0.912 for the mean and top quartile of the Pearson correlation ( R p ) respectively, which are significantly better than those of the previous works (Ammad-Ud-Din et al., J Chem Inf Model 54:2347–9, 2014), (Haider et al., PLoS ONE 10:0144490, 2015), (Menden et al., PLoS ONE 8:61318, 2013). However, when the training set and the testing set are divided exclusively based on drugs or cell lines, the performance of tCNNS decreases significantly and R p and R 2 drop to barely above 0. Conclusions Our approach is able to predict the drug effects on cancer cell lines with high accuracy, and its performance remains stable with less but high-quality data, and with fewer features for the cancer cell lines. tCNNS can also solve the problem of outliers in other feature space. Besides achieving high scores in these statistical metrics, tCNNS also provides some insights into the phenotypic screening. However, the performance of tCNNS drops in the blind test. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12859-019-2910-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.