Paper detail

Deep learning is competing random forest in computational docking

Computational docking is the core process of computer-aided drug design; it aims at predicting the best orientation and conformation of a small drug molecule when bound to a target large protein receptor. The docking quality is typically measured by a scoring function: a mathematical predictive model that produces a score representing the binding free energy and hence the stability of the resulting complex molecule. We analyze the performance of both learning techniques on the scoring power, the ranking power, docking power, and screening power using the PDBbind 2013 database. For the scoring and ranking powers, the proposed learning scoring functions depend on a wide range of features (energy terms, pharmacophore, intermolecular) that entirely characterize the protein-ligand complexes. For the docking and screening powers, the proposed learning scoring functions depend on the intermolecular features of the RF-Score to utilize a larger number of training complexes. For the scoring power, the DL\_RF scoring function achieves Pearson's correlation coefficient between the predicted and experimentally measured binding affinities of 0.799 versus 0.758 of the RF scoring function. For the ranking power, the DL scoring function ranks the ligands bound to fixed target protein with accuracy 54% for the high-level ranking and with accuracy 78% for the low-level ranking while the RF scoring function achieves (46% and 62%) respectively. For the docking power, the DL\_RF scoring function has a success rate when the three best-scored ligand binding poses are considered within 2 Å root-mean-square-deviation from the native pose of 36.0% versus 30.2% of the RF scoring function. For the screening power, the DL scoring function has an average enrichment factor and success rate at the top 1% level of (2.69 and 6.45%) respectively versus (1.61 and 4.84%) respectively of the RF scoring function.

preprint2016arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.