2021
DOI: 10.3390/ijms22084023
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Cascade Graph Convolutional Network for Predicting Protein–Ligand Binding Affinity

Abstract: Accurate prediction of binding affinity between protein and ligand is a very important step in the field of drug discovery. Although there are many methods based on different assumptions and rules do exist, prediction performance of protein–ligand binding affinity is not satisfactory so far. This paper proposes a new cascade graph-based convolutional neural network architecture by dealing with non-Euclidean irregular data. We represent the molecule as a graph, and use a simple linear transformation to deal wit… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
21
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2025
2025

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(21 citation statements)
references
References 39 publications
0
21
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, drug discovery would immediately benefit from key advances in this topic, by better triaging potentially interesting molecules among virtual screening hits , and proposing viable analogues in emerging ultra-large chemical spaces for hit to lead optimization. With the ever increasing amount of high-resolution experimentally determined protein–ligand structures, binding affinity prediction algorithms have switched from physics-based to empirical scoring functions, and in the last few years to machine learning and deep learning methods. , The latter category of descriptor-based scoring functions has notably led to numerous protein–ligand affinity models (see a nonexhaustive list Table S1) notably because deep learning does not require explicit descriptor engineering and is ideally suited to find hidden nonlinear relationships between 3D protein–ligand structures and binding affinity. The first deep neural networks (DNNs) to predict binding affinities were convolutional neural networks (CNNs) reading a protein–ligand complex as an ensemble of grid-based voxels with multiple channels corresponding to pharmacophoric properties. ,, The CNN architecture is relatively inefficient from a computational point of view because most of the voxels do not carry any relevant information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…For example, drug discovery would immediately benefit from key advances in this topic, by better triaging potentially interesting molecules among virtual screening hits , and proposing viable analogues in emerging ultra-large chemical spaces for hit to lead optimization. With the ever increasing amount of high-resolution experimentally determined protein–ligand structures, binding affinity prediction algorithms have switched from physics-based to empirical scoring functions, and in the last few years to machine learning and deep learning methods. , The latter category of descriptor-based scoring functions has notably led to numerous protein–ligand affinity models (see a nonexhaustive list Table S1) notably because deep learning does not require explicit descriptor engineering and is ideally suited to find hidden nonlinear relationships between 3D protein–ligand structures and binding affinity. The first deep neural networks (DNNs) to predict binding affinities were convolutional neural networks (CNNs) reading a protein–ligand complex as an ensemble of grid-based voxels with multiple channels corresponding to pharmacophoric properties. ,, The CNN architecture is relatively inefficient from a computational point of view because most of the voxels do not carry any relevant information.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite several warnings on the composition and completeness of the PDBbind archive, it remains the largest resource to train machine learning models for structure-based prediction of binding affinities. Many graph neural networks (GNNs), used as end-to-end standalone architecture, ,,,, in cascade or in combination with CNNs, have been described recently. None of them significantly outperforms first-generation CNNs, most models presenting rather similar accuracies (Pearson correlation coefficient in the 0.80–0.85 range; root-mean square error (RMSE) around 1.2–1.3 pK unit) in predicting affinities for the PDBbind core set (Table S1) but significantly lower accuracies for true external test sets. ,, …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…A.2.4 for details). The comparisons of LigPose affnity with several recent structure-based deep learning methods [37,39,35,36,41,38,40] Pearson R of 0.835. Compared to the methods that use native structures, LigPose affnity is also comparable or better than the best performing method PointTransformer (MAE: 0.91, RMSE: 1.19, Pearson R: 0.852), indicating its strong ability to learn native-like atom interactions.…”
Section: Affinity Estimationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Bioinformatics is a versatile tool to research complicated biological processes, and machine learning continues to gain popularity for the development of tools to analyze biological data. A graph convolutional neural (GCN) network is a recently developed neural network to directly operate and analyze graphic structures and has been widely applied for analysis of protein-ligand complexes, structure-embedded graph representation 29 , structure-based virtual screening 30 , prediction of binding affinity 31 , 32 , and prediction of binding residues 34 . Moreover, many novel algorithms have been proposed for solving specific biological issues in recent years 33 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%