Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33985583›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2021

Comparison of structure- and ligand-based scoring functions for deep generative models: a GPCR case study.

Morgan Thomas, Robert T Smith, Noel M O'Boyle, Chris de Graaf, Andreas Bender

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed
13.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Test-Time Training Scaling Laws for Chemical Exploration in Drug Design.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  4. REINFORCE-ING Chemical Language Models for Drug Discovery.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  5. Benchmarking 3D Structure-Based Molecule Generators.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025
    Article
  6. Identification of nanomolar adenosine ANature communications · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Directional ΔJournal of chemical information and modeling · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Morgan ThomasCentre for Molecular Informatics, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1610-3499
Robert T SmithComputational Chemistry, Sosei Heptares, Steinmetz Building, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6DG, UK.
Noel M O'BoyleComputational Chemistry, Sosei Heptares, Steinmetz Building, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6DG, UK.
Chris de GraafComputational Chemistry, Sosei Heptares, Steinmetz Building, Granta Park, Great Abington, Cambridge, CB21 6DG, UK. chris.degraaf@soseiheptares.com.
Andreas BenderCentre for Molecular Informatics, Department of Chemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1EW, UK. ab454@cam.ac.uk.
Heptares Therapeutics (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBGranta Design (United Kingdom) · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep generative models have shown the ability to devise both valid and novel chemistry, which could significantly accelerate the identification of bioactive compounds. Many current models, however, use molecular descriptors or ligand-based predictive methods to guide molecule generation towards a desirable property space. This restricts their application to relatively data-rich targets, neglecting those where little data is available to sufficiently train a predictor. Moreover, ligand-based approaches often bias molecule generation towards previously established chemical space, thereby limiting their ability to identify truly novel chemotypes. In this work, we assess the ability of using molecular docking via Glide-a structure-based approach-as a scoring function to guide the deep generative model REINVENT and compare model performance and behaviour to a ligand-based scoring function. Additionally, we modify the previously published MOSES benchmarking dataset to remove any induced bias towards non-protonatable groups. We also propose a new metric to measure dataset diversity, which is less confounded by the distribution of heavy atom count than the commonly used internal diversity metric. With respect to the main findings, we found that when optimizing the docking score against DRD2, the model improves predicted ligand affinity beyond that of known DRD2 active molecules. In addition, generated molecules occupy complementary chemical and physicochemical space compared to the ligand-based approach, and novel physicochemical space compared to known DRD2 active molecules. Furthermore, the structure-based approach learns to generate molecules that satisfy crucial residue interactions, which is information only available when taking protein structure into account. Overall, this work demonstrates the advantage of using molecular docking to guide de novo molecule generation over ligand-based predictors with respect to predicted affinity, novelty, and the ability to identify key interactions between ligand and protein target. Practically, this approach has applications in early hit generation campaigns to enrich a virtual library towards a particular target, and also in novelty-focused projects, where de novo molecule generation either has no prior ligand knowledge available or should not be biased by it.

Indexed as

AIArtificial IntelligenceDeep learningDe novo designGenerative modelsLBDDLigand-based drug designMolecular dockingQSARQuantitative structure–activity relationshipRecurrent neural networkReinforcement learningSBDDStructure-based drug design

Identifiers

PMID33985583
PMCPMC8117600
OpenAlexW3133989558

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.