Motivation-Accurately predicting the binding affinities of large sets of diverse protein-ligand complexes is an extremely challenging task. The scoring functions that attempt such computational prediction are essential for analysing the outputs of Molecular Docking, which is in turn an important technique for drug discovery, chemical biology and structural biology. Each scoring function assumes a predetermined theory-inspired functional form for the relationship between the variables that characterise the complex, which also include parameters fitted to experimental or simulation data, and its predicted binding affinity. The inherent problem of this rigid approach is that it leads to poor predictivity for those complexes that do not conform to the modelling assumptions. Moreover, resampling strategies, such as cross-validation or bootstrapping, are still not systematically used to guard against the overfitting of calibration data in parameter estimation for scoring functions.Results-We propose a novel scoring function (RF-Score) that circumvents the need for problematic modelling assumptions via non-parametric machine learning. In particular, Random Forest was used to implicitly capture binding effects that are hard to model explicitly. RF-Score is compared with the state of the art on the demanding PDBbind benchmark. Results show that RFScore is a very competitive scoring function. Importantly, RF-Score's performance was shown to improve dramatically with training set size and hence the future availability of more high quality structural and interaction data is expected to lead to improved versions of RF-Score.

Predicting the response of a specific cancer to a therapy is a major goal in modern oncology that should ultimately lead to a personalised treatment. High-throughput screenings of potentially active compounds against a panel of genomically heterogeneous cancer cell lines have unveiled multiple relationships between genomic alterations and drug responses. Various computational approaches have been proposed to predict sensitivity based on genomic features, while others have used the chemical properties of the drugs to ascertain their effect. In an effort to integrate these complementary approaches, we developed machine learning models to predict the response of cancer cell lines to drug treatment, quantified through IC50 values, based on both the genomic features of the cell lines and the chemical properties of the considered drugs. Models predicted IC50 values in a 8-fold cross-validation and an independent blind test with coefficient of determination R2 of 0.72 and 0.64 respectively. Furthermore, models were able to predict with comparable accuracy (R2 of 0.61) IC50s of cell lines from a tissue not used in the training stage. Our in silico models can be used to optimise the experimental design of drug-cell screenings by estimating a large proportion of missing IC50 values rather than experimentally measuring them. The implications of our results go beyond virtual drug screening design: potentially thousands of drugs could be probed in silico to systematically test their potential efficacy as anti-tumour agents based on their structure, thus providing a computational framework to identify new drug repositioning opportunities as well as ultimately be useful for personalized medicine by linking the genomic traits of patients to drug sensitivity.

Classical scoring functions have reached a plateau in their performance in virtual screening and binding affinity prediction. Recently, machine-learning scoring functions trained on protein-ligand complexes have shown great promise in small tailored studies. They have also raised controversy, specifically concerning model overfitting and applicability to novel targets. Here we provide a new ready-to-use scoring function (RF-Score-VS) trained on 15 426 active and 893 897 inactive molecules docked to a set of 102 targets. We use the full DUD-E data sets along with three docking tools, five classical and three machine-learning scoring functions for model building and performance assessment. Our results show RF-Score-VS can substantially improve virtual screening performance: RF-Score-VS top 1% provides 55.6% hit rate, whereas that of Vina only 16.2% (for smaller percent the difference is even more encouraging: RF-Score-VS top 0.1% achieves 88.6% hit rate for 27.5% using Vina). In addition, RF-Score-VS provides much better prediction of measured binding affinity than Vina (Pearson correlation of 0.56 and −0.18, respectively). Lastly, we test RF-Score-VS on an independent test set from the DEKOIS benchmark and observed comparable results. We provide full data sets to facilitate further research in this area (http://github.com/oddt/rfscorevs) as well as ready-to-use RF-Score-VS (http://github.com/oddt/rfscorevs_binary).