Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42458575›Full record

ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026

Evaluation of deep learning architectures for predicting ligand interactions with neurologically relevant GPCRs.

Souvik Dey, Pinyi Lu, Anders Wallqvist, Mohamed Diwan M AbdulHameed

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Souvik DeyDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Defense Health Agency Research & Development, Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702-5012, USA.
Pinyi LuDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Defense Health Agency Research & Development, Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702-5012, USA.
Anders WallqvistDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Defense Health Agency Research & Development, Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702-5012, USA.
Mohamed Diwan M AbdulHameedDepartment of Defense Biotechnology High Performance Computing Software Applications Institute, Defense Health Agency Research & Development, Medical Research and Development Command, Fort Detrick, MD, 21702-5012, USA. mabdulhameed@bhsai.org.

Funding

Defense Threat Reduction Agency CBCall14-CBS-05-2-0007U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command HT942524F0189U.S. Army Medical Research and Development Command W81XWH20C0031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) are therapeutic targets for over 30% of approved drugs, yet specific GPCR subtypes act as molecular initiating events in several neurotoxic adverse outcome pathways. Therefore, knowledge of GPCR-ligand interactions is critical for drug discovery and computational toxicology. However, accurate predictions of GPCR-ligand binding can be challenging due to receptor conformational flexibility, complex membrane environment, and lack of selectivity among ligands. Drug-target interaction (DTI) models that jointly encode protein and ligand representations offer a promising approach to predict these interactions. In this study, we identified 119 neurologically relevant GPCRs and evaluated three deep learning architectures for creating a unified GPCR-ligand DTI model: dual-projection cosine similarity networks and transformer encoders (both using pre-computed embeddings) as well as bidirectional cross-attention networks (with frozen or fine-tuned encoders). Unlike prior studies that rely primarily on random splits, we evaluated model performance across random-split, cluster-split, and novel protein scenarios to provide realistic estimates of generalization. All the models performed well, achieving area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) values of 0.91 on random-split validation, 0.81 on cluster-split testing (structurally distinct ligands), and 0.64 on novel GPCR generalization (proteins unseen during training). However, in the unseen-proteins test set, predictions were less accurate for GPCRs from protein families not represented in the training data or those with contrasting ligand interactions. We also assessed the models' ability to detect ligand selectivity, achieving an AUROC of 0.71 on ligands with at least five known GPCR interactions, although sensitivity remained low at 0.49. Our curated neurological GPCR dataset and rigorous evaluation framework provide realistic model assessment, reveal where current models succeed or fail, and provide practical guidance for deploying GPCR-ligand predictors in drug discovery and toxicity screening.Scientific contributionOur work connects computational toxicology and GPCR pharmacology by systematically evaluating transformers and similarity-based proteochemometric architectures for predicting CNS-relevant GPCR-ligand interactions under rigorous cold-start conditions. Our analysis reveals that while models achieve strong performance on structurally novel ligands, generalization to novel GPCRs remains challenging, with particularly poor prediction for out-of-family receptors. These results provide a rigorous evaluation framework for predicting ligand interactions against neurologically relevant GPCRs and highlight the need for improved protein representation learning in computational toxicology frameworks.

Indexed as

Cold-start evaluationDeep learningDrug safety assessmentDTIGPCR-ligand bindingNeurotoxicityProteochemometricsTransformers

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.