Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening

Scientific Reports

Volumn 7, Issue , 2017, Pages

  Wójcikowski, Maciej ^a   Ballester, Pedro J ^b,c,d   Siedlecki, Pawel ^a,e  

^a INSTITUTE OF BIOCHEMISTRY AND BIOPHYSICS   (Poland)

^b AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^c INSTITUT PAOLI CALMETTES   (France)

^d AIX MARSEILLE UNIVERSITY   (France)

^e UNIVERSITY OF WARSAW   (Poland)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BINDING AFFINITY; MACHINE LEARNING; PREDICTION; ARTICLE;

EID: 85027440798     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20452322     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/srep46710     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Schneider, G. Virtual screening: an endless staircase? Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9, 273-276 (2010).
2. Scior, T. et al. Recognizing Pitfalls in Virtual Screening: A Critical Review. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 52, 867-881 (2012).
3. Bauer, M. R., Ibrahim, T. M., Vogel, S. M. & Boeckler, F. M. Evaluation and Optimization of Virtual Screening Workflows with DEKOIS 2.0-A Public Library of Challenging Docking Benchmark Sets. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1447-1462 (2013).
4. Bostrom, J., Hogner, A. & Schmitt, S. Do Structurally Similar Ligands Bind in a Similar Fashion? J. Med. Chem. 49, 6716-6725 (2006).
5. 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, 6582-6594 (2012).
6. Siedlecki, P. et al. Discovery of two novel, small-molecule inhibitors of DNA methylation. J. Med. Chem. 49, 678-683 (2006).
7. Odolczyk, N. et al. Discovery of novel potent Δ F508-CFTR correctors that target the nucleotide binding domain. EMBO Mol. Med. 5, 1484-1501 (2013).
8. Kar, S. & Roy, K. How far can virtual screening take us in drug discovery? Expert Opin. Drug Discov. 8, 245-261 (2013).
9. Kiss, R. et al. Discovery of Novel Human Histamine H4 Receptor Ligands by Large-Scale Structure-Based Virtual Screening. J. Med. Chem. 51, 3145-3153 (2008).
10. Gilson, M. K. & Zhou, H.-X. Calculation of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinities. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct. 36, 21-42 (2007).
11. Spyrakis, F. et al. The consequences of scoring docked ligand conformations using free energy correlations. Eur. J. Med. Chem. 42, 921-933 (2007).
12. Li, H., Leung, K.-S., Wong, M.-H. & Ballester, P. J. Improving AutoDock Vina Using Random Forest: The Growing Accuracy of Binding Affinity Prediction by the Effective Exploitation of Larger Data Sets. Mol. Inform. 34, 115-126 (2015).
13. 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. WIREs Comput Mol Sci (2015).
14. Ballester, P. J. & Mitchell, J. B. O. A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinforma. Oxf. Engl. 26, 1169-1175 (2010).
15. Durrant, J. D. & McCammon, J. A. NNScore 2.0: a neural-network receptor-ligand scoring function. J Chem Inf Model 51, 2897-2903 (2011).
16. Sotriffer, C. A., Sanschagrin, P., Matter, H. & Klebe, G. SFCscore: scoring functions for affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. Proteins 73, 395-419 (2008).
17. Zilian, D. & Sotriffer, C. A. SFCscore(RF): a random forest-based scoring function for improved affinity prediction of protein-ligand complexes. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1923-1933 (2013).
18. Cheng, T., Li, Q., Zhou, Z., Wang, Y. & Bryant, S. H. Structure-Based Virtual Screening for Drug Discovery: a Problem-Centric Review. AAPS J. 14, 133-141 (2012).
19. Huang, S.-Y., Grinter, S. Z. & Zou, X. Scoring functions and their evaluation methods for protein-ligand docking: recent advances and future directions. Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 12, 12899-12908 (2010).
20. Ma, D.-L., Chan, D. S.-H. & Leung, C.-H. Drug repositioning by structure-based virtual screening. Chem Soc Rev 42, 2130-2141 (2013).
21. Ballester, P. J. & Mitchell, J. B. O. Comments on 'Leave-Cluster-Out Cross-Validation Is Appropriate for Scoring Functions Derived from Diverse Protein Data Sets': Significance for the Validation of Scoring Functions. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 51, 1739-1741 (2011).
22. Ballester, P. J., Schreyer, A. & Blundell, T. L. Does a more precise chemical description of protein-ligand complexes lead to more accurate prediction of binding affinity? J Chem Inf Model 54, 944-955 (2014).
23. Li, H., Leung, K.-S., Wong, M.-H. & Ballester, P. J. Substituting random forest for multiple linear regression improves binding affinity prediction of scoring functions: Cyscore as a case study. BMC Bioinformatics 15, 291 (2014).
24. Li, H., Leung, K.-S., Wong, M.-H. & Ballester, P. J. Low-Quality Structural and Interaction Data Improves Binding Affinity Prediction via Random Forest. Molecules 20, 10947-10962 (2015).
25. Ashtawy, H. M. & Mahapatra, N. R. A Comparative Assessment of Predictive Accuracies of Conventional and Machine Learning Scoring Functions for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction. IEEEACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinforma. IEEE ACM 12, 335-347 (2015).
26. Li, H., Leung, K.-S., Wong, M.-H. & Ballester, P. J. Correcting the impact of docking pose generation error on binding affinity prediction. BMC Bioinformatics 17, 13-25 (2016).
27. Pires, D. E. V. & Ascher, D. B. CSM-lig: a web server for assessing and comparing protein-small molecule affinities. Nucleic Acids Res 44, W557-W561 (2016).
28. Wojcikowski, M., Zielenkiewicz, P. & Siedlecki, P. Open Drug Discovery Toolkit (ODDT): a new open-source player in the drug discovery field. J. Cheminformatics 7, 26 (2015).
29. Refaeilzadeh, P., Tang, L. & Liu, H. In Encyclopedia of Database Systems (eds Liu, L. & Tamer Ozsu, M.) 532-538 (Springer US, 2009).
30. Irwin, J. J. Community benchmarks for virtual screening. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22, 193-199 (2008).
31. Li, L., Wang, B. & Meroueh, S. O. Support vector regression scoring of receptor-ligand complexes for rank-ordering and virtual screening of chemical libraries. J Chem Inf Model 51, 2132-2138 (2011).
32. Ding, B., Wang, J., Li, N. & Wang, W. Characterization of small molecule binding. I. Accurate identification of strong inhibitors in virtual screening. J Chem Inf Model 53, 114-122 (2013).
33. Sun, H. et al. Constructing and Validating High-Performance MIEC-SVM Models in Virtual Screening for Kinases: A Better Way for Actives Discovery. Sci Rep 6, 24817 (2016).
34. Sunseri, J., Ragoza, M., Collins, J. & Koes, D. R. A D3R prospective evaluation of machine learning for protein-ligand scoring. J Comput Aided Mol Des 1-11 (2016).
35. Trott, O. & Olson, A. J. AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. J Comput Chem 31, 455-461 (2010).
36. Koes, D. R., Baumgartner, M. P & Camacho, C. J. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the CSAR 2011 benchmarking exercise. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53, 1893-1904 (2013).
37. Mysinger, M. M. & Shoichet, B. K. Rapid Context-Dependent Ligand Desolvation in Molecular Docking. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 50, 1561-1573 (2010).
38. Kuntz, I. D., Blaney, J. M., Oatley, S. J., Langridge, R. & Ferrin, T. E. A geometric approach to macromolecule-ligand interactions. J Mol Biol 161, 269-288 (1982).
39. Lang, P. T. et al. DOCK 6: combining techniques to model RNA-small molecule complexes. RNA 15, 1219-1230 (2009).
40. O'Boyle, N. M. et al. Open Babel: An open chemical toolbox. J Cheminform 3, 33 (2011).
41. Certara USA, Inc. SybylX 2.1.
42. Jones, G., Willett, P., Glen, R. C., Leach, A. R. & Taylor, R. Development and validation of a genetic algorithm for flexible docking. J Mol Biol 267, 727-748 (1997).
43. Baxter, C. A., Murray, C. W., Clark, D. E., Westhead, D. R. & Eldridge, M. D. Flexible docking using Tabu search and an empirical estimate of binding affinity. Proteins 33, 367-382 (1998).
44. Muegge, I. PMF scoring revisited. J Med Chem 49, 5895-5902 (2006).
45. Svetnik, V. et al. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 43, 1947-1958 (2003).
46. Hawkins, D. M. The problem of overfitting. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 44, 1-12 (2004).
47. Irwin, J. J. & Shoichet, B. K. Docking Screens for Novel Ligands Conferring New Biology. J Med Chem 59, 4103-4120 (2016).
48. Lin, C. et al. LibD3C: Ensemble classifiers with a clustering and dynamic selection strategy. Neurocomputing 123, 424-435 (2014).
49. Zou, Q., Zeng, J., Cao, L. & Ji, R. A novel features ranking metric with application to scalable visual and bioinformatics data classification. Neurocomputing 173, Part 2, 346-354 (2016).