Advanced search
Publication Cover
Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery Volume 16, 2021 - Issue 10
Submit an article Journal homepage
643
Views
7
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Review

Computational representations of protein–ligand interfaces for structure-based virtual screening

Tong Qina State Key Laboratory of Bioactive Substance and Function of Natural Medicines, Department of New Drug Research and Development, Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaCorrespondence[email protected]
View further author information
,
Zihao Zhua State Key Laboratory of Bioactive Substance and Function of Natural Medicines, Department of New Drug Research and Development, Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaView further author information
,
Xiang Simon Wangb Artificial Intelligence and Drug Discovery Core Laboratory for District of Columbia Center for AIDS Research (DC CFAR), Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, College of Pharmacy, Howard University, U.S.AView further author information
,
Jie Xiaa State Key Laboratory of Bioactive Substance and Function of Natural Medicines, Department of New Drug Research and Development, Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaCorrespondence[email protected]
ORCID Iconhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-9567-3763View further author information
ORCID Icon &
Song Wua State Key Laboratory of Bioactive Substance and Function of Natural Medicines, Department of New Drug Research and Development, Institute of Materia Medica, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, ChinaView further author information
Pages 1175-1192 | Received 05 Nov 2020, Accepted 11 May 2021, Published online: 03 Jun 2021

References

  • Ou-Yang SS, Lu JY, Kong XQ, et al. Computational drug discovery. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2012;33(9):1131–1140.
  • DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 2016;47:20–33.
  • Hasselgren C, Myatt GJ. Computational Toxicology and Drug Discovery. Methods Mol Biol. 2018;1800:233–244.
  • Schneider G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2010;9(4):273–276.
  • Scior T, Bender A, Tresadern G, et al. Recognizing pitfalls in virtual screening: a critical review. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(4):867–881.
  • Cereto-Massague A, Ojeda MJ, Valls C, et al. Molecular fingerprint similarity search in virtual screening. Methods. 2015;71:58–63.
  • Kumar A, Zhang KY. Hierarchical virtual screening approaches in small molecule drug discovery. Methods. 2015;71:26–37.
  • Leung CH, Ma DL. Recent advances in virtual screening for drug discovery. Methods. 2015;71:1–3.
  • Heikamp K, Bajorath J. The future of virtual compound screening. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2013;81(1):33–40.
  • Batool M, Ahmad B, Choi S, et al. A structure-based drug discovery paradigm. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(11):11.
  • Chiba S, Ikeda K, Ishida T, et al. Identification of potential inhibitors based on compound proposal contest: tyrosine-protein kinase Yes as a target. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):17209.
  • Amano Y, Namatame I, Tateishi Y, et al. Structural insights into the novel inhibition mechanism of Trypanosoma cruzi spermidine synthase. Acta Crystallogr D Biol Crystallogr. 2015;71(9):1879–1889.
  • Sousa SF, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ. Protein-ligand docking: current status and future challenges. Proteins. 2006;65(1):15–26.
  • Cheng T, Li X, Li Y, et al. Comparative assessment of scoring functions on a diverse test set. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49(4):1079–1093.
  • Bjerrum EJ. Machine learning optimization of cross docking accuracy. Comput Biol Chem. 2016;62:133–144.
  • Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR. A comparative assessment of ranking accuracies of conventional and machine-learning-based scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2012;9(5):1301–1313.
  • Lavecchia A, Di Giovanni C. Virtual screening strategies in drug discovery: a critical review. Curr Med Chem. 2013;20(23):2839–2860.
  • Leach AR, Shoichet BK, Peishoff CE. Prediction of protein-ligand interactions. Docking and scoring: successes and gaps. J Med Chem. 2006;49(20):5851–5855.
  • Huang SY, Grinter SZ, Zou X. Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2010;12(40):12899–12908.
  • Spyrakis F, Amadasi A, Fornabaio M, et al. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations. Eur J Med Chem. 2007;42(7):921–933.
  • Ballester PJ. Machine learning for molecular modelling in drug design. Biomolecules. 2019;9(6):6.
  • Melville JL, Burke EK, Hirst JD. Machine learning in virtual screening. Comb Chem High Throughput Screen. 2009;12(4):332–343.
  • Wu Z, Ramsundar B, Feinberg EN, et al. MoleculeNet: a benchmark for molecular machine learning. Chem Sci. 9(2): 513–530. 2018. .
  • Leidner F, Kurt Yilmaz N, Schiffer CA. Target-specific prediction of ligand affinity with structure-based interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(9):3679–3691.
  • Dimitrov T, Kreisbeck C, Becker JS, et al. Autonomous molecular design: then and now. ACS Appl Mater Interfaces. 2019;11(28):24825–24836.
  • David L, Arus-Pous J, Karlsson J, et al. Applications of Deep-Learning in Exploiting Large-Scale and Heterogeneous Compound Data in Industrial Pharmaceutical Research. Front Pharmacol. 2019;10:1303.
  • Xie L, Xu L, Chang S, et al. Multitask deep networks with grid featurization achieve improved scoring performance for protein-ligand binding. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2020;96(3):973–983.
  • Nguyen DD, Wei GW. AGL-Score: algebraic Graph Learning Score for Protein-Ligand Binding Scoring, Ranking, Docking, and Screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(7):3291–3304.
  • Cheng T, Li Q, Zhou Z, et al. Structure-based virtual screening for drug discovery: a problem-centric review. AAPS J. 2012;14(1):133–141.
  • LeCun Y, Bengio Y, Hinton G. Deep learning. Nature. 2015;521(7553):436–444. .
  • Wainberg M, Merico D, Delong A, et al. Deep learning in biomedicine. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;58(1):829–838.
  • Lee H, Kwon H. Going deeper with contextual CNN for hyperspectral image classification. IEEE Trans Image Process. 2017;26(10):4843–4855.
  • Zhang L, Tan J, Han D, et al. From machine learning to deep learning: progress in machine intelligence for rational drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 22(11): 1680–1685. 2017. .
  • Tan L, Batista J, Bajorath J. Computational methodologies for compound database searching that utilize experimental protein-ligand interaction information. Chem Biol Drug Des. 2010;76(3):191–200.
  • Liu J, Su M, Liu Z, et al. Enhance the performance of current scoring functions with the aid of 3D protein-ligand interaction fingerprints. BMC Bioinformatics. 18(1): 343. 2017. .
  • Li GB, Yu ZJ, Liu S, et al. IFPTarget: a customized virtual target identification method based on protein-ligand interaction fingerprinting analyses. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(7):1640–1651.
  • Crisman TJ, Sisay MT, Bajorath J. Ligand-target interaction-based weighting of substructures for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2008;48(10):1955–1964.
  • Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J. Structural interaction fingerprint (SIFt): a novel method for analyzing three-dimensional protein-ligand binding interactions. J Med Chem. 2004;47(2):337–344. .
  • Chuaqui C, Deng Z, Singh J. Interaction profiles of protein kinase-inhibitor complexes and their application to virtual screening. J Med Chem. 2005;48(1):121–133.
  • Deng Z, Chuaqui C, Singh J. Knowledge-based design of target-focused libraries using protein-ligand interaction constraints. J Med Chem. 2006;49(2):490–500.
  • Nandigam RK, Kim S, Singh J, et al. Position specific interaction dependent scoring technique for virtual screening based on weighted protein–ligand interaction fingerprint profiles. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49(5):1185–1192.
  • Smusz S, Mordalski S, Witek J, et al. Multi-step protocol for automatic evaluation of docking results based on machine learning methods–A case study of serotonin receptors 5-HT(6) and 5-HT(7). J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(4):823–832.
  • Witek J, Smusz S, Rataj K, et al. An application of machine learning methods to structural interaction fingerprints–a case study of kinase inhibitors. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2014;24(2):580–585.
  • Clark AM, Labute P. 2D depiction of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47(5):1933–1944.
  • Marcou G, Rognan D. Optimizing fragment and scaffold docking by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47(1):195–207.
  • Radifar M, Yuniarti N, Istyastono EPP. Python-based Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprinting. Bioinformation. 2013;9(6):325–328.
  • Chupakhin V, Marcou G, Baskin I, et al. Predicting ligand binding modes from neural networks trained on protein-ligand interaction fingerprints. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(4):763–772.
  • Venhorst J, Nunez S, Terpstra JW, et al. Assessment of scaffold hopping efficiency by use of molecular interaction fingerprints. J Med Chem. 2008;51(11):3222–3229.
  • Kelly MD, Mancera RL. Expanded interaction fingerprint method for analyzing ligand binding modes in docking and structure-based drug design. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2004;44(6):1942–1951.
  • Mpamhanga CP, Chen B, McLay IM, et al. Knowledge-based interaction fingerprint scoring: a simple method for improving the effectiveness of fast scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model. 2006;46(2):686–698.
  • Perez-Nueno VI, Rabal O, Borrell JI, et al. APIF: a new interaction fingerprint based on atom pairs and its application to virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2009;49(5):1245–1260.
  • Desaphy J, Raimbaud E, Ducrot P, et al. Encoding protein-ligand interaction patterns in fingerprints and graphs. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(3):623–637.
  • Da Silva F, Desaphy J, Rognan D. IChem: a versatile toolkit for detecting, comparing, and predicting protein-ligand interactions. ChemMedChem. 2018;13(6):507–510.
  • Li F, Wan X, Xing J, et al. Deep neural network classifier for virtual screening inhibitors of (S)-Adenosyl-L-Methionine (SAM)-Dependent Methyltransferase family. Front Chem. 2019;7:324.
  • Jacquemard C, Tran-Nguyen VK, Drwal MN, et al. Local interaction density (LID), a fast and efficient tool to prioritize docking poses. Molecules. 2019;24(14):14.
  • Da C, Kireev D. Structural protein-ligand interaction fingerprints (SPLIF) for structure-based virtual screening: method and benchmark study. J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54(9):2555–2561.
  • Da C, Stashko M, Jayakody C, et al. Discovery of Mer kinase inhibitors by virtual screening using structural protein-ligand interaction fingerprints. Bioorg Med Chem. 2015;23(5):1096–1101.
  • Cang Z, Wei GW. Integration of element specific persistent homology and machine learning for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2018;34(2):2.
  • Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR, Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR. Descriptor Data Bank (DDB). A cloud platform for multiperspective modeling of protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(1):134–147.
  • Wojcikowski M, Zielenkiewicz P, Siedlecki P. Open drug discovery toolkit (ODDT): a new open-source player in the drug discovery field. J Cheminform. 2015;7(1):26.
  • Durrant JD, McCammon JA. BINANA: a novel algorithm for ligand-binding characterization. J Mol Graph Model. 2011;29(6):888–893.
  • Ballester PJ, Mitchell JB. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(9):1169–1175. .
  • Ballester PJ, Schreyer A, Blundell TL. Does a more precise chemical description of protein-ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity? J Chem Inf Model. 2014;54(3):944–955.
  • Li H, Leung KS, Wong MH, et al. Improving autodock vina using random forest: the growing accuracy of binding affinity prediction by the effective exploitation of larger data sets. Mol Inform. 2015;34(2–3):115–126.
  • Li H, Peng J, Sidorov P, et al. Classical scoring functions for docking are unable to exploit large volumes of structural and interaction data. Bioinformatics. 2019;35(20):3989–3995.
  • Wojcikowski M, Ballester PJ, Siedlecki P. Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):46710.
  • Ouyang X, Handoko SD, Kwoh CK. CScore: a simple yet effective scoring function for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction using modified CMAC learning architecture. J Bioinform Comput Biol. 2011;9(Suppl 1):1–14.
  • Pires DE, Ascher DB. CSM-lig: a web server for assessing and comparing protein-small molecule affinities. Nucleic Acids Res. 2016;44(W1):W557–61.
  • Pires DE, De Melo-minardi RC, Dos Santos MA, et al. Cutoff scanning matrix (CSM): structural classification and function prediction by protein inter-residue distance patterns. BMC Genomics. 2011;12(Suppl 4):S12.
  • Da Silveira CH, Pires DE, Minardi RC, et al. Protein cutoff scanning: a comparative analysis of cutoff dependent and cutoff free methods for prospecting contacts in proteins. Proteins. 2009;74(3):727–743.
  • Singh RK, Tropsha A, Vaisman II. Delaunay tessellation of proteins: four body nearest-neighbor propensities of amino acid residues. J Comput Biol. 1996;3(2):213–221.
  • Zhang S, Golbraikh A, Tropsha A. Development of quantitative structure-binding affinity relationship models based on novel geometrical chemical descriptors of the protein-ligand interfaces. J Med Chem. 2006;49(9):2713–2724.
  • Hsieh JH, Yin S, Wang XS, et al. Cheminformatics meets molecular mechanics: a combined application of knowledge-based pose scoring and physical force field-based hit scoring functions improves the accuracy of structure-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2012;52(1):16–28.
  • Ma X, Sun Y, Huang Z, et al. A density functional theory study of the molecular interactions between a series of amides and sulfuric acid. Chemosphere. 2019;214:781–790.
  • Parr RG, Yang W. Density-functional theory of the electronic structure of molecules. Annu Rev Phys Chem. 1995;46(1):701–728.
  • Fourches D, Politi R, Tropsha A. Target-specific native/decoy pose classifier improves the accuracy of ligand ranking in the CSAR 2013 benchmark. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(1):63–71.
  • Politi R, Convertino M, Popov K, et al. Docking and scoring with target-specific pose classifier succeeds in native-like pose identification but not binding affinity prediction in the CSAR 2014 benchmark exercise. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56(6):1032–1041.
  • Xia J, Hu H, Xue W, et al. The discovery of novel HDAC3 inhibitors via virtual screening and in vitro bioassay. J Enzyme Inhib Med Chem. 2018;33(1):525–535.
  • Xia J, Hsieh JH, Hu H, et al. The development of target-specific pose filter ensembles to boost ligand enrichment for structure-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(6):1414–1425.
  • Xia J, Wang Z, Huan Y, et al. Pose filter-based ensemble learning enables discovery of orally active, nonsteroidal farnesoid x receptor agonists. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(3):1202–1214.
  • Li L, Wang B, Meroueh SO. Support vector regression scoring of receptor-ligand complexes for rank-ordering and virtual screening of chemical libraries. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51(9):2132–2138.
  • Li L, Khanna M, Jo I, et al. Target-specific support vector machine scoring in structure-based virtual screening: computational validation, in vitro testing in kinases, and effects on lung cancer cell proliferation. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51(4):755–759.
  • Xing J, Lu W, Liu R, et al. Machine-Learning-Assisted approach for discovering novel inhibitors targeting bromodomain-containing protein 4. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(7):1677–1690.
  • Liu J, Wang R. Classification of current scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model. 2015;55(3):475–482.
  • Li H, Leung K-S, Wong M-H, et al. Substituting random forest for multiple linear regression improves binding affinity prediction of scoring functions: cyscore as a case study. BMC Bioinformatics. 2014;15(1):291.
  • Cao Y, Li L. Improved protein-ligand binding affinity prediction by using a curvature-dependent surface-area model. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(12):1674–1680.
  • Trott O, Olson AJ. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem. 2010;31(2):455–461.
  • Wang R, Lai L, Wang S. Further development and validation of empirical scoring functions for structure-based binding affinity prediction. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 2002;16(1):11–26.
  • Wang C, Zhang Y. Improving scoring-docking-screening powers of protein-ligand scoring functions using random forest. J Comput Chem. 2017;38(3):169–177.
  • Lu J, Hou X, Wang C, et al. Incorporating explicit water molecules and ligand conformation stability in machine-learning scoring functions. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(11):4540–4549.
  • Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR. A comparative assessment of predictive accuracies of conventional and machine learning scoring functions for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform. 2014;12(2):335–347.
  • Ashtawy HM, Mahapatra NR. Machine-learning scoring functions for identifying native poses of ligands docked to known and novel proteins. BMC Bioinformatics. 2015;16(Suppl 6):S3.
  • Durrant JD, McCammon JA. NNScore: a neural-network-based scoring function for the characterization of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50(10):1865–1871.
  • Durrant JD, McCammon JA. NNScore 2.0: a neural-network receptor-ligand scoring function. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51(11):2897–2903.
  • Zilian D, Sotriffer CA. SFCscore(RF): a random forest-based scoring function for improved affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(8):1923–1933.
  • Sotriffer CA, Sanschagrin P, Matter H, et al. SFCscore: scoring functions for affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. Proteins. 2008;73(2):395–419.
  • Li GB, Yang LL, Wang WJ, et al. ID-Score: a new empirical scoring function based on a comprehensive set of descriptors related to protein-ligand interactions. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(3):592–600.
  • Ye WL, Shen C, Xiong GL, et al. Improving docking-based virtual screening ability by integrating multiple energy auxiliary terms from molecular docking scoring. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(9):4216–4230.
  • Yan Y, Wang W, Sun Z, et al. Protein-ligand empirical interaction components for virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(8):1793–1806.
  • Yasuo N, Sekijima M. Improved method of structure-based virtual screening via interaction-energy-based learning. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(3):1050–1061.
  • Jasper JB, Humbeck L, Brinkjost T, et al. A novel interaction fingerprint derived from per atom score contributions: exhaustive evaluation of interaction fingerprint performance in docking based virtual screening. J Cheminform. 2018;10(1):15.
  • Liu Q, Kwoh CK, Li J. Binding affinity prediction for protein-ligand complexes based on beta contacts and B factor. J Chem Inf Model. 2013;53(11):3076–3085.
  • Wang B, Zhao Z, Nguyen DD, et al. Feature functional theory–binding predictor (FFT–BP) for the blind prediction of binding free energies. Theor Chem Acc. 2017;136(4):55.
  • Nguyen DD, Cang Z, Wei GW. A review of mathematical representations of biomolecular data. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2020;22(8):4343–4367.
  • Li H, Sze KH, Lu G, et al. Machine‐learning scoring functions for structure‐based virtual screening. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2021;11:e1478.
  • Nguyen DD, Cang Z, Wu K, et al. Mathematical deep learning for pose and binding affinity prediction and ranking in D3R Grand Challenges. J Comput Aided Mol Des. 33(1): 71–82. 2019. .
  • Nguyen DD, Wei -GWD-G-GL. Differential geometry-based geometric learning of molecular datasets. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2019;35(3):e3179.
  • Cang Z, Wei GW, Dunbrack RL. TopologyNet: topology based deep convolutional and multi-task neural networks for biomolecular property predictions. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017;13(7):e1005690.
  • Cang Z, Wei GW. Integration of element specific persistent homology and machine learning for protein‐ligand binding affinity prediction. Int J Numer Method Biomed Eng. 2018;34(2):e2914.
  • Cang Z, Mu L, Wei GW. Representability of algebraic topology for biomolecules in machine learning based scoring and virtual screening. PLoS Comput Biol. 2018;14(1):e1005929.
  • Nguyen DD, Xiao T, Wang M, et al. Rigidity strengthening: a mechanism for protein-ligand binding. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(7):1715–1721.
  • Shin HC, Roth HR, Gao M, et al. Deep convolutional neural networks for computer-aided detection: CNN architectures, dataset characteristics and transfer learning. IEEE Trans Med Imaging. 2016;35(5):1285–1298.
  • Komura D, Ishikawa S. Machine learning approaches for pathologic diagnosis. Virchows Arch. 2019;475(2):131–138.
  • Zhang X, Zou J, He K, et al. Accelerating very deep convolutional networks for classification and detection. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2016;38(10):1943–1955.
  • Wallach I, Dzamba M, Heifets A. AtomNet: a deep convolutional neural network for bioactivity prediction in structure-based drug discovery.ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1510.02855,2015.
  • Ragoza M, Hochuli J, Idrobo E, et al. Protein-ligand scoring with convolutional neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 57(4): 942–957. 2017. .
  • Ragoza M, Turner L, Koes DR. Ligand pose optimization with atomic grid-based convolutional neural networks. arXiv Preprint. 2017;arXiv:171007400.
  • Jimenez J, Skalic M, Martinez-Rosell G, et al. KDEEP: protein-ligand absolute binding affinity prediction via 3D-convolutional neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(2):287–296.
  • Imrie F, Bradley AR, Van Der Schaar M, et al. Protein family-specific models using deep neural networks and transfer learning improve virtual screening and highlight the need for more data. J Chem Inf Model. 2018;58(11):2319–2330.
  • Stepniewska-Dziubinska MM, Zielenkiewicz P, Siedlecki P. Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(21):3666–3674.
  • Hassan-Harrirou H, Zhang C, RosENet: LT. Improving binding affinity prediction by leveraging molecular mechanics energies with an ensemble of 3D convolutional neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(6):2791–2802.
  • Kwon Y, Shin WH, Ko J, et al. AK-Score: accurate protein-ligand binding affinity prediction using an ensemble of 3D-convolutional neural networks. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(22):22.
  • Jiang H, Fan M, Wang J, et al. Guiding conventional protein-ligand docking software with convolutional neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(10):4594–4602.
  • Sunseri J, Koes DR. libmolgrid: graphics processing unit accelerated molecular gridding for deep learning applications. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(3):1079–1084.
  • Stecula A, Hussain MS, Viola RE. Discovery of novel inhibitors of a critical brain enzyme using a homology model and a deep convolutional neural network. J Med Chem. 2020;63(16):8867–8875.
  • Lim J, Ryu S, Park K, et al. Predicting drug-target interaction using a novel graph neural network with 3D structure-embedded graph representation. J Chem Inf Model. 59(9): 3981–3988. 2019. .
  • Sun M, Zhao S, Gilvary C, et al. Graph convolutional networks for computational drug development and discovery. Brief Bioinform. 2020;21(3):919–935.
  • Pereira JC, Caffarena ER, Dos Santos CN. Boosting docking-based virtual screening with deep learning. J Chem Inf Model. 2016;56(12):2495–2506. .
  • Gomes J, Ramsundar B, Feinberg E, et al. Atomic convolutional networks for predicting protein-ligand binding affinity. ArXiv Preprint ArXiv:1703.10603,2017.
  • Yang J, Shen C, Huang N. Predicting or pretending: artificial intelligence for protein-ligand interactions lack of sufficiently large and unbiased datasets. Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:69. .
  • Feinberg EN, Sur D, Wu Z, et al. PotentialNet for molecular property prediction. ACS Cent Sci. 2018;4(11):1520–1530.
  • Cho H, Lee EK, Choi IS. Layer-wise relevance propagation of InteractionNet explains protein-ligand interactions at the atom level. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):21155.
  • Karlov DS, Sosnin S, Fedorov MV, et al. graphDelta: MPNN scoring function for the affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. ACS Omega. 2020;5(10):5150–5159.
  • Behler J, Parrinello M. Generalized neural-network representation of high-dimensional potential-energy surfaces. Phys Rev Lett. 2007;98(14):146401.
  • Zheng L, Fan J, Mu Y. OnionNet: a multiple-layer intermolecular-contact-based convolutional neural network for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction. ACS Omega. 2019;4(14):15956–15965.
  • Lavecchia A. Deep learning in drug discovery: opportunities, challenges and future prospects. Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(10):2017–2032. .
  • Adeshina YO, Deeds EJ, Karanicolas J. Machine learning classification can reduce false positives in structure-based virtual screening. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;60(6):18477–18488.
  • Xiong G-L, Ye W-L, Shen C, et al. Improving structure-based virtual screening performance via learning from scoring function components. Brief Bioinform. 2015. doi:https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaa094.
  • Khamis MA, Gomaa W, Ahmed WF. Machine learning in computational docking. Artif Intell Med. 2015;63(3):135–152.
  • Yang X, Wang Y, Byrne R, et al. Concepts of artificial intelligence for computer-assisted drug discovery. Chem Rev. 2019;119(18):10520–10594.
  • Li J, Fu A, Zhang L. An overview of scoring functions used for protein-ligand interactions in molecular docking. Interdiscip Sci. 2019;11(2):320–328.
  • Ballester PJ. Selecting machine-learning scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening. Drug Discov Today Technol. 2019;32-33:81–87.
  • Guedes IA, Pereira FSS, Dardenne LE. Empirical scoring functions for structure-based virtual screening: applications, critical aspects, and challenges. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:1089.
  • Vamathevan J, Clark D, Czodrowski P, et al. Applications of machine learning in drug discovery and development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2019;18(6):463–477.
  • Lo YC, Rensi SE, Torng W, et al. Machine learning in chemoinformatics and drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(8):1538–1546.
  • Stephenson N, Shane E, Chase J, et al. Survey of machine learning techniques in drug discovery. Curr Drug Metab. 2019;20(3):185–193.
  • Chen D, Liu S, Kingsbury P, et al. Deep learning and alternative learning strategies for retrospective real-world clinical data. NPJ Digit Med. 2019;2(1):43.
  • Li H, Sze KH, Lu G, et al. Machine‐learning scoring functions for structure‐based drug lead optimization. WIREs Comput Mol Sci. 2020; 10:e1465. .
  • Morrone JA, Weber JK, Huynh T, et al. Combining docking pose rank and structure with deep learning improves protein-ligand binding mode prediction over a baseline docking approach. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(9):4170–4179.
  • Chen L, Cruz A, Ramsey S, et al. Hidden bias in the DUD-E dataset leads to misleading performance of deep learning in structure-based virtual screening. PLoS One. 2019;14(8):e0220113.
  • Sieg J, Flachsenberg F, Rarey M. In need of bias control: evaluating chemical data for machine learning in structure-based virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(3):947–961.
  • Kim H, Kim E, Lee I, et al. Artificial intelligence in drug discovery: a comprehensive review of data-driven and machine learning approaches. Biotechnol Bioprocess Eng. 2020;25(6):895–930.
  • Hessler G, Baringhaus KH. Artificial intelligence in drug design. Molecules. 2018;23(10):10.
  • Lu Y, Wang R, Yang CY, et al. Analysis of ligand-bound water molecules in high-resolution crystal structures of protein-ligand complexes. J Chem Inf Model. 2007;47(2):668–675.
  • Wong SE, Lightstone FC. Accounting for water molecules in drug design. Expert Opin Drug Discov. 2011;6(1):65–74.
  • Roberts BC, Mancera RL. Ligand-protein docking with water molecules. J Chem Inf Model. 2008;48(2):397–408.
  • Garcia-Sosa AT, Mancera RL, Dean PM. WaterScore: a novel method for distinguishing between bound and displaceable water molecules in the crystal structure of the binding site of protein-ligand complexes. J Mol Model. 2003;9(3):172–182.
  • Thilagavathi R, Mancera RL. Ligand-protein cross-docking with water molecules. J Chem Inf Model. 2010;50(3):415–421.
  • Balius TE, Fischer M, Stein RM, et al. Testing inhomogeneous solvation theory in structure-based ligand discovery. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2017;114(33):E6839–E6846.
  • Zhong H, Wang Z, Wang X, et al. Importance of a crystalline water network in docking-based virtual screening: a case study of BRD4. Phys Chem Chem Phys. 2019;21(45):25276–25289.
  • Dou X, Jiang L, Wang Y, et al. Discovery of new GSK-3beta inhibitors through structure-based virtual screening. Bioorg Med Chem Lett. 2018;28(2):160–166.
  • Lexa KW, Carlson HA. Protein flexibility in docking and surface mapping. Q Rev Biophys. 2012;45(3):301–343.
  • Lill MA. Efficient incorporation of protein flexibility and dynamics into molecular docking simulations. Biochemistry. 2011;50(28):6157–6169.
  • Hochuli J, Helbling A, Skaist T, et al. Visualizing convolutional neural network protein-ligand scoring. J Mol Graph Model. 2018;84:96–108.
  • Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, et al. The PDBbind database: collection of binding affinities for protein-ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures. J Med Chem. 2004;47(12):2977–2980.
  • Wang R, Fang X, Lu Y, et al. The PDBbind database: methodologies and updates. J Med Chem. 2005;48(12):4111–4119.
  • Liu Z, Su M, Han L, et al. Forging the basis for developing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions. Acc Chem Res. 2017;50(2):302–309.
  • Francoeur PG, Masuda T, Sunseri J, et al. Three-dimensional convolutional neural networks and a cross-docked data set for structure-based drug design. J Chem Inf Model. 2020;60(9):4200–4215.
  • Cai C, Wang S, Xu Y, et al. Transfer learning for drug discovery. J Med Chem. 2020;63(16):8683–8694.
  • Chen H, Engkvist O, Wang Y, et al. The rise of deep learning in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2018;23(6):1241–1250.
  • Ghasemi F, Fassihi A, Perez-Sanchez H, et al. The role of different sampling methods in improving biological activity prediction using deep belief network. J Comput Chem. 2017;38(4):195–203.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Order Reprints Request Corporate Permissions

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

Request Academic Permissions

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.

Related research

People also read lists articles that other readers of this article have read.

Recommended articles lists articles that we recommend and is powered by our AI driven recommendation engine.

Cited by lists all citing articles based on Crossref citations.
Articles with the Crossref icon will open in a new tab.