Skip to main content

LigityScore: A CNN-Based Method for Binding Affinity Predictions

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies (BIOSTEC 2021)

Abstract

Scoring functions are the heart of structure based drug design, where they are used to estimate how strongly the docked pose of a ligand binds to the target. Seeking a scoring function that can accurately predict the binding affinity is key for successful virtual screening methods. Deep learning approaches have recently seen a rise in popularity as a means to improve the scoring function having the key advantage to automatically extract features and create a complex representation of the data without feature engineering and expert knowledge.

In this study we present the LigityScore scoring functions – LigityScore1D and LigityScore3D. The LigityScore models are rotationally invariant scoring functions based on convolutional neural networks (CNN). LigityScore descriptors are extracted directly from the structural and interacting properties of the protein-ligand complex which are input to a CNN for automatic feature extraction and binding affinity prediction. This representation uses the spatial distribution of Pharmacophoric Interaction Points (PIPs), derived from interaction features from the protein-ligand complex based on pharmacophoric features conformant to specific family types (Hydrogen Bond Acceptor (HBA), Hydrogen Bond Donor (HBD), etc.) and distance thresholds. The data representation component and the CNN architecture together, constitute the LigityScore scoring function.

LigityScore1D considers a single distance from each combination of two PIPs from the extracted ligand and protein PIP pools, and generates a feature vector for each pharmacophoric family pair (example HBA-HBD) based on the distribution of the PIP pair distances in discretised space. The different pharmacophoric family pair combinations are grouped to construct a matrix representation of the complex. Similarly, LigityScore3D considers 3-PIP combinations to create a triangular structure with three distances between the PIPs. These are discretised to represent binning coordinates for a 3D feature cube for each pharmacophoric family set (example HBA-HBD-HBD) that describe the distribution of distances in 3D space. The cube from each pharmacophoric family set are grouped together to from a feature cube collection.

The main contribution for this study is to present a novel rotationally invariant protein-ligand representation for use as a CNN based scoring function for binding affinity prediction. The CNN model is used for automatic feature extraction from the LigityScore representations. LigityScore models are evaluated for scoring power on the latest two CASF benchmarks. The Pearson correlation coefficient, and the standard deviation in linear regression were used to compare LigityScore with the benchmark model, and also other models in literature published in recent years. LigityScore3D has achieved better results than LigityScore1D and showed similar performance in both CASF benchmarks. LigityScore3D ranked 5\(^{\textrm{th}}\) place in the CASF-2013 benchmark, and 8\(^{\textrm{th}}\) in CASF-2016, with an average Pearson correlation coefficient (R) performance of 0.713 and 0.725 respectively. LigityScore1D obtained best results when trained using the PBDbind v2018 dataset, and ranked 8\(^{\textrm{th}}\) place in the CASF-2013 and 7\(^{\textrm{th}}\) place in CASF-2016 with an R performance of 0.635 and 0.741 respectively. Our methods show relatively good performance that exceed the Pafnucy performance, as one of the best performing CNN based scoring function, on the CASF-2013 benchmark, using a less computationally complex model that can be trained 16 times faster.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 64.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Ain, Q.U., Aleksandrova, A., Roessler, F.D., Ballester, P.J.: Machine-learning scoring functions to improve structure-based binding affinity prediction and virtual screening. Wiley Interdisc. Rev.: Comput. Mol. Sci. 5(6), 405–424 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Azzopardi, J., Ebejer, J.P.: LigityScore: convolutional neural network for binding-affinity predictions. In: Bioinformatics, pp. 38–49 (2021)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Ballester, P.J., Mitchell, J.B.: A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics 26(9), 1169–1175 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Berman, H., Henrick, K., Nakamura, H.: Announcing the worldwide protein data bank. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 10(12), 980–980 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Boyles, F., Deane, C.M., Morris, G.M.: Learning from the ligand: using ligand-based features to improve binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics 36(3), 758–764 (2020)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ching, T., et al.: Opportunities and obstacles for deep learning in biology and medicine. J. R. Soc. Interface 15(141), 20170387 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Dunbar Jr., J.B., et al.: CSAR benchmark exercise of 2010: selection of the protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51(9), 2036–2046 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Ebejer, J.P., Finn, P.W., Wong, W.K., Deane, C.M., Morris, G.M.: Ligity: a non-superpositional, knowledge-based approach to virtual screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59(6), 2600–2616 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Goldberg, Y.: A primer on neural network models for natural language processing. J. Artif. Intell. Res. 57, 345–420 (2016)

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. Goodfellow, I., Bengio, Y., Courville, A.: Deep Learning. MIT Press, Cambridge (2016)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  11. Gund, P.: Three-dimensional pharmacophoric pattern searching. In: Hahn, F.E., Kersten, H., Kersten, W., Szybalski, W. (eds.) Progress in Molecular and Subcellular Biology, vol. 5, pp. 117–143. Springer, Heidelberg (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-66626-1_4

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  12. He, K., Zhang, X., Ren, S., Sun, J.: Delving deep into rectifiers: surpassing human-level performance on ImageNet classification. In: 2015 IEEE International Conference on Computer Vision (ICCV), pp. 1026–1034 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Ioffe, S., Szegedy, C.: Batch normalization: accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. In: Proceedings of the 32nd International Conference on Machine Learning. Proceedings of Machine Learning Research, vol. 37, pp. 448–456. PMLR, Lille, 07–09 July 2015

    Google Scholar 

  14. Jiménez, J., Skalic, M., Martinez-Rosell, G., De Fabritiis, G.: K deep: protein-ligand absolute binding affinity prediction via 3D-convolutional neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 58(2), 287–296 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kaggle, M.: Kaggle: Merck molecular activity challenge (2012). https://www.kaggle.com/c/MerckActivity, https://www.kaggle.com/c/MerckActivity. Accessed 8 Feb 2019

  16. Kingma, D.P., Ba, J.: Adam: a method for stochastic optimization (2014). arxiv:1412.6980. Comment: Published as a conference paper at the 3rd International Conference for Learning Representations, San Diego, 2015

  17. Landrum, G.: RDKit: open-source cheminformatics (2020). https://www.rdkit.org, accessed April, 2020

  18. Leach, A.R., Gillet, V.J., Lewis, R.A., Taylor, R.: Three-dimensional pharmacophore methods in drug discovery. J. Med. Chem. 53(2), 539–558 (2010)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. LeCun, Y., Bengio, Y., Hinton, G.: Deep learning. Nature 521(7553), 436–444 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Li, Y., et al.: Comparative assessment of scoring functions on an updated benchmark: 1. Compilation of the test set. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 54(6), 1700–1716 (2014)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Li, Y., et al.: Assessing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions with the CASF-2013 benchmark. Nat. Protoc. 13(4), 666 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Lipinski, C.A., Lombardo, F., Dominy, B.W., Feeney, P.J.: Experimental and computational approaches to estimate solubility and permeability in drug discovery and development settings. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 23(1–3), 3–25 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Liu, Z., et al.: Forging the basis for developing protein-ligand interaction scoring functions. Acc. Chem. Res. 50(2), 302–309 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Liu, Z., Cui, Y., Xiong, Z., Nasiri, A., Zhang, A., Hu, J.: DeepSeqPan, a novel deep convolutional neural network model for pan-specific class i HLA-peptide binding affinity prediction. Sci. Rep. 9(1), 794 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lundberg, S.M., Lee, S.I.: A unified approach to interpreting model predictions. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 30, pp. 4765–4774. Curran Associates, Inc. (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Ma, J., Sheridan, R.P., Liaw, A., Dahl, G.E., Svetnik, V.: Deep neural nets as a method for quantitative structure-activity relationships. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 55(2), 263–274 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Mysinger, M.M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J.J., Shoichet, B.K.: Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (dud-e): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. J. Med. Chem. 55(14), 6582–6594 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nguyen, D.D., Wei, G.W.: AGL-score: algebraic graph learning score for protein-ligand binding scoring, ranking, docking, and screening. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59(7), 3291–3304 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Nguyen, D.D., Wei, G.W.: DG-GL: differential geometry-based geometric learning of molecular datasets. International journal for numerical methods in biomedical engineering 35(3), e3179 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Paszke, A., et al.: PyTorch: an imperative style, high-performance deep learning library. In: Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, vol. 32, pp. 8024–8035. Curran Associates, Inc. (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pérez-Sianes, J., Pérez-Sánchez, H., Díaz, F.: Virtual screening meets deep learning. Curr. Comput. Aided Drug Des. 15(1), 6–28 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Ragoza, M., Hochuli, J., Idrobo, E., Sunseri, J., Koes, D.R.: Protein-ligand scoring with convolutional neural networks. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 57(4), 942–957 (2017)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Rifaioglu, A.S., Atas, H., Martin, M.J., Cetin-Atalay, R., Atalay, V., Dogan, T.: Recent applications of deep learning and machine intelligence on in silico drug discovery: methods, tools and databases. Brief. Bioinform. 10 (2018)

    Google Scholar 

  34. 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. 59(3), 947–961 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Simonyan, K., Zisserman, A.: Very deep convolutional networks for large-scale image recognition. In: ICLR 2015 (2014)

    Google Scholar 

  36. Stepniewska-Dziubinska, M.M., Zielenkiewicz, P., Siedlecki, P.: Pafnucy-a deep neural network for structure-based drug discovery. Stat 1050, 19 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  37. Su, M., et al.: Comparative assessment of scoring functions: the CASF-2016 update. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 59(2), 895–913 (2018)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Szegedy, C., et al.: Going deeper with convolutions. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 1–9 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ulyanov, D., Vedaldi, A., Lempitsky, V.: Improved texture networks: maximizing quality and diversity in feed-forward stylization and texture synthesis. In: The IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR). IEEE (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  40. Wójcikowski, M., Kukiełka, M., Stepniewska-Dziubinska, M.M., Siedlecki, P.: Development of a protein-ligand extended connectivity (PLEC) fingerprint and its application for binding affinity predictions. Bioinformatics 35(8), 1334–1341 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Zhang, H., Liao, L., Saravanan, K.M., Yin, P., Wei, Y.: DeepBindRG: a deep learning based method for estimating effective protein-ligand affinity. PeerJ 7, e7362 (2019)

    Google Scholar 

  42. 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(14), 15956–15965 (2019)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the AWS Research Credits Team for supporting our research with AWS credits to develop our models.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joseph Azzopardi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Azzopardi, J., Ebejer, J.P. (2022). LigityScore: A CNN-Based Method for Binding Affinity Predictions. In: Gehin, C., et al. Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies. BIOSTEC 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1710. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20664-1_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20664-1_2

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20663-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20664-1

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics