Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
173 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
46 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

PharmacoNet: Accelerating Large-Scale Virtual Screening by Deep Pharmacophore Modeling (2310.00681v3)

Published 1 Oct 2023 in q-bio.BM and cs.LG

Abstract: As the size of accessible compound libraries expands to over 10 billion, the need for more efficient structure-based virtual screening methods is emerging. Different pre-screening methods have been developed for rapid screening, but there is still a lack of structure-based methods applicable to various proteins that perform protein-ligand binding conformation prediction and scoring in an extremely short time. Here, we describe for the first time a deep-learning framework for structure-based pharmacophore modeling to address this challenge. We frame pharmacophore modeling as an instance segmentation problem to determine each protein hotspot and the location of corresponding pharmacophores, and protein-ligand binding pose prediction as a graph-matching problem. PharmacoNet is significantly faster than state-of-the-art structure-based approaches, yet reasonably accurate with a simple scoring function. Furthermore, we show the promising result that PharmacoNet effectively retains hit candidates even under the high pre-screening filtration rates. Overall, our study uncovers the hitherto untapped potential of a pharmacophore modeling approach in deep learning-based drug discovery.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (64)
  1. Ultra-large library docking for discovering new chemotypes. Nature, 566(7743):224–229, 2019.
  2. Virtual discovery of melatonin receptor ligands to modulate circadian rhythms. Nature, 579(7800):609–614, 2020.
  3. An open-source drug discovery platform enables ultra-large virtual screens. Nature, 580(7805):663–668, 2020.
  4. Ultralarge virtual screening identifies sars-cov-2 main protease inhibitors with broad-spectrum activity against coronaviruses. Journal of the American Chemical Society, 144(7):2905–2920, 2022.
  5. Artificial intelligence–enabled virtual screening of ultra-large chemical libraries with deep docking. Nature Protocols, 17(3):672–697, 2022.
  6. Synthon-based ligand discovery in virtual libraries of over 11 billion compounds. Nature, 601(7893):452–459, 2022.
  7. Glide: a new approach for rapid, accurate docking and scoring. 1. method and assessment of docking accuracy. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 47(7):1739–1749, 2004.
  8. Autodock vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading. Journal of computational chemistry, 31(2):455–461, 2010.
  9. Lessons learned in empirical scoring with smina from the csar 2011 benchmarking exercise. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 53(8):1893–1904, 2013.
  10. Equibind: Geometric deep learning for drug binding structure prediction. In International conference on machine learning, pages 20503–20521. PMLR, 2022.
  11. Tankbind: Trigonometry-aware neural networks for drug-protein binding structure prediction. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:7236–7249, 2022.
  12. Diffdock: Diffusion steps, twists, and turns for molecular docking. In The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, 2023. URL https://openreview.net/forum?id=kKF8_K-mBbS.
  13. Reducing false positive rate of docking-based virtual screening by active learning. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24(1):bbac626, 2023.
  14. Generating multibillion chemical space of readily accessible screening compounds. iScience, 23(11):101681, 2020. ISSN 2589-0042. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2020.101681. URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004220308737.
  15. Accelerating high-throughput virtual screening through molecular pool-based active learning. Chemical science, 12(22):7866–7881, 2021.
  16. Structure-based pharmacophore modeling, virtual screening, molecular docking, admet, and molecular dynamics (md) simulation of potential inhibitors of pd-l1 from the library of marine natural products. Marine Drugs, 20(1):29, 2021.
  17. Deepbindgcn: Integrating molecular vector representation with graph convolutional neural networks for protein–ligand interaction prediction. Molecules, 28(12):4691, 2023.
  18. Glossary of terms used in medicinal chemistry (iupac recommendations 1998). Pure and applied Chemistry, 70(5):1129–1143, 1998.
  19. Next generation 3d pharmacophore modeling. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Computational Molecular Science, 10(4):e1468, 2020.
  20. Hot-spots-guided receptor-based pharmacophores (hs-pharm): a knowledge-based approach to identify ligand-anchoring atoms in protein cavities and prioritize structure-based pharmacophores. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 48(7):1396–1410, 2008.
  21. Ligandscout: 3-d pharmacophores derived from protein-bound ligands and their use as virtual screening filters. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 45(1):160–169, 2005.
  22. Pocket v. 2: further developments on receptor-based pharmacophore modeling. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 46(6):2684–2691, 2006.
  23. Application of structure-based focusing to the estrogen receptor. Journal of Computational Chemistry, 22(10):993–1003, 2001.
  24. All in one: Cavity detection, druggability estimate, cavity-based pharmacophore perception, and virtual screening. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(1):573–585, 2018.
  25. Autoph4: An automated method for generating pharmacophore models from protein binding pockets. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, 60(9):4326–4338, 2020.
  26. Sheng-Yong Yang. Pharmacophore modeling and applications in drug discovery: challenges and recent advances. Drug discovery today, 15(11-12):444–450, 2010.
  27. Ligvoxel: inpainting binding pockets using 3d-convolutional neural networks. Bioinformatics, 35(2):243–250, 2019.
  28. Fully convolutional networks for semantic segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 3431–3440, 2015.
  29. Mask r-cnn. In Proceedings of the IEEE international conference on computer vision, pages 2961–2969, 2017.
  30. Pdb-wide collection of binding data: current status of the pdbbind database. Bioinformatics, 31(3):405–412, 2015.
  31. Plip: fully automated protein–ligand interaction profiler. Nucleic acids research, 43(W1):W443–W447, 2015.
  32. A generalized protein–ligand scoring framework with balanced scoring, docking, ranking and screening powers. Chemical Science, 14(30):8129–8146, 2023.
  33. Comparative assessment of scoring functions: the casf-2016 update. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(2):895–913, 2018.
  34. Directory of useful decoys, enhanced (dud-e): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 55(14):6582–6594, 2012.
  35. Evaluation and optimization of virtual screening workflows with dekois 2.0–a public library of challenging docking benchmark sets. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 53(6):1447–1462, 2013.
  36. Gnina 1.0: molecular docking with deep learning. Journal of cheminformatics, 13(1):1–20, 2021.
  37. Greg Landrum et al. Rdkit: Open-source cheminformatics, 2006.
  38. Better informed distance geometry: using what we know to improve conformation generation. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 55(12):2562–2574, 2015.
  39. Boosting protein–ligand binding pose prediction and virtual screening based on residue–atom distance likelihood potential and graph transformer. Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, 65(15):10691–10706, 2022.
  40. Virtual screening with gnina 1.0. Molecules, 26(23):7369, 2021.
  41. Conformer generation with omega: algorithm and validation using high quality structures from the protein databank and cambridge structural database. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 50(4):572–584, 2010.
  42. Multiple active site corrections for docking and virtual screening. Journal of medicinal chemistry, 47(1):80–89, 2004.
  43. Comparison of topological, shape, and docking methods in virtual screening. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 47(4):1504–1519, 2007.
  44. Pignet: a physics-informed deep learning model toward generalized drug–target interaction predictions. Chemical Science, 13(13):3661–3673, 2022.
  45. Uff, a full periodic table force field for molecular mechanics and molecular dynamics simulations. Journal of the American chemical society, 114(25):10024–10035, 1992.
  46. Thomas A Halgren. Merck molecular force field. i. basis, form, scope, parameterization, and performance of mmff94. Journal of computational chemistry, 17(5-6):490–519, 1996.
  47. A versatile deep learning-based protein-ligand interaction prediction model for accurate binding affinity scoring and virtual screening. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.01066, 2023.
  48. Feature pyramid networks for object detection. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 2117–2125, 2017.
  49. Swin transformer v2: Scaling up capacity and resolution. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 12009–12019, 2022.
  50. The protein data bank. Nucleic acids research, 28(1):235–242, 2000.
  51. Decoupled weight decay regularization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1711.05101, 2017.
  52. Open babel: An open chemical toolbox. Journal of cheminformatics, 3(1):1–14, 2011.
  53. A geometric deep learning approach to predict binding conformations of bioactive molecules. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(12):1033–1039, 2021.
  54. Do deep learning models really outperform traditional approaches in molecular docking? arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.07134, 2023.
  55. Deep docking: a deep learning platform for augmentation of structure based drug discovery. ACS central science, 6(6):939–949, 2020.
  56. Predicting drug–target interaction using a novel graph neural network with 3d structure-embedded graph representation. Journal of chemical information and modeling, 59(9):3981–3988, 2019.
  57. In silico structure-based prediction of receptor–ligand binding affinity: current progress and challenges. Structural Bioinformatics: Applications in Preclinical Drug Discovery Process, pages 109–175, 2019.
  58. Deep learning for ligand-based virtual screening in drug discovery. In 2018 3rd international conference on pattern analysis and intelligent systems (PAIS), pages 1–5. IEEE, 2018.
  59. Combining structure-based pharmacophore modeling and machine learning for the identification of novel btk inhibitors. International Journal of Biological Macromolecules, 222:239–250, 2022.
  60. Hidden bias in the dud-e dataset leads to misleading performance of deep learning in structure-based virtual screening. PloS one, 14(8):e0220113, 2019.
  61. A protein-ligand interaction-focused 3d molecular generative framework for generalizable structure-based drug design. chemrxiv, 2023.
  62. Deep generative design with 3d pharmacophoric constraints. Chemical science, 12(43):14577–14589, 2021.
  63. Masked-attention mask transformer for universal image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF conference on computer vision and pattern recognition, pages 1290–1299, 2022.
  64. Oneformer: One transformer to rule universal image segmentation. In Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pages 2989–2998, 2023.
Citations (2)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

We haven't generated a summary for this paper yet.

Ai Sparkles Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com Summarize Now