Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37166179›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2023

A Small Step Toward Generalizability: Training a Machine Learning Scoring Function for Structure-Based Virtual Screening.

Jack Scantlebury, Lucy Vost, Anna Carbery, Thomas E Hadfield, Oliver M Turnbull, Nathan Brown, Vijil Chenthamarakshan, Payel Das, Harold Grosjean, Frank von Delft and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Drug Resistance Predictions Based on a Directed Flag Transformer.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025
    Article
  10. The physics-AI dialogue in drug design.RSC medicinal chemistry · 2025
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  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

11 authors.

Jack ScantleburyDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9877-0107
Lucy VostDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-3194-0172
Anna CarberyDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-8867-9550
Thomas E HadfieldDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-5397-6320
Oliver M TurnbullDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-0239-1207
Nathan BrownBenevolentAI, London W1T 5HD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-9243-8699
Vijil ChenthamarakshanIBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7830-5777
Payel DasIBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, New York 10598, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7288-0516
Harold GrosjeanStructural Genomics Consortium, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7DQ, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-1095-5578
Frank von DelftDiamond Light Source Ltd., Harwell Science and Innovation Campus, Didcot OX11 0DE, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-0378-0017
Charlotte M DeaneDepartment of Statistics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 2JD, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1388-2252

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BB/S507611/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few years, many machine learning-based scoring functions for predicting the binding of small molecules to proteins have been developed. Their objective is to approximate the distribution which takes two molecules as input and outputs the energy of their interaction. Only a scoring function that accounts for the interatomic interactions involved in binding can accurately predict binding affinity on unseen molecules. However, many scoring functions make predictions based on data set biases rather than an understanding of the physics of binding. These scoring functions perform well when tested on similar targets to those in the training set but fail to generalize to dissimilar targets. To test what a machine learning-based scoring function has learned, input attribution, a technique for learning which features are important to a model when making a prediction on a particular data point, can be applied. If a model successfully learns something beyond data set biases, attribution should give insight into the important binding interactions that are taking place. We built a machine learning-based scoring function that aimed to avoid the influence of bias via thorough train and test data set filtering and show that it achieves comparable performance on the Comparative Assessment of Scoring Functions, 2016 (CASF-2016) benchmark to other leading methods. We then use the CASF-2016 test set to perform attribution and find that the bonds identified as important by PointVS, unlike those extracted from other scoring functions, have a high correlation with those found by a distance-based interaction profiler. We then show that attribution can be used to extract important binding pharmacophores from a given protein target when supplied with a number of bound structures. We use this information to perform fragment elaboration and see improvements in docking scores compared to using structural information from a traditional, data-based approach. This not only provides definitive proof that the scoring function has learned to identify some important binding interactions but also constitutes the first deep learning-based method for extracting structural information from a target for molecule design.

Indexed as

Machine LearningProteinsDatabases, ProteinLigandsMolecular Docking SimulationProtein BindingLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID37166179
PMCPMC10207375

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.