scholarly journals Wnt Binding Affinity Prediction for Putative Frizzled-Type Cysteine-Rich Domains

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (17) ◽  
pp. 4168 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Agostino ◽  
Sebastian Öther-Gee Pohl
Keyword(s):  
Binding Energy ◽  
Prediction Model ◽  
Binding Affinity ◽  
Wnt Signalling ◽  
Binding Affinity Prediction ◽  
New Model ◽  
Affinity Prediction ◽  
Frizzled Receptors ◽  
Canonical Wnt ◽  
Related Proteins

Several proteins other than the frizzled receptors (Fzd) and the secreted Frizzled-related proteins (sFRP) contain Fzd-type cysteine-rich domains (CRD). We have termed these domains “putative Fzd-type CRDs”, as the relevance of Wnt signalling in the majority of these is unknown; the RORs, an exception to this, are well known for mediating non-canonical Wnt signalling. In this study, we have predicted the likely binding affinity of all Wnts for all putative Fzd-type CRDs. We applied both our previously determined Wnt‒Fzd CRD binding affinity prediction model, as well as a newly devised model wherein the lipid term was forced to contribute favourably to the predicted binding energy. The results obtained from our new model indicate that certain putative Fzd CRDs are much more likely to bind Wnts, in some cases exhibiting selectivity for specific Wnts. The results of this study inform the investigation of Wnt signalling modulation beyond Fzds and sFRPs.

GRAM: A True Null Model for Relative Binding Affinity Predictions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Guanglei Cui ◽  
Alan P. Graves ◽  
Eric S. Manas
Keyword(s):  
Binding Affinity ◽  
Performance Metrics ◽  
Null Model ◽  
Performance Measure ◽  
Interval Estimate ◽  
Empirical Observation ◽  
Binding Affinity Prediction ◽  
Affinity Prediction ◽  
Relative Binding Affinity ◽  
Relative Binding

Relative binding affinity prediction is a critical component in computer aided drug design. Significant amount of effort has been dedicated to developing rapid and reliable in silico methods. However, robust assessment of their performance is still a complicated issue, as it requires a performance measure applicable in the prospective setting and more importantly a true null model that defines the expected performance of random in an objective manner. Although many performance metrics, such as correlation coefficient (r2), mean unsigned error (MUE), and room mean square error (RMSE), are frequently used in the literature, a true and non-trivial null model has yet been identified. To address this problem, here we introduce an interval estimate as an additional measure, namely prediction interval (PI), which can be estimated from the error distribution of the predictions. The benefits of using the interval estimate are 1) it provides the uncertainty range in the predicted activities, which is important in prospective applications; 2) a true null model with well-defined PI can be established. We provide one such example termed Gaussian Random Affinity Model (GRAM), which is based on the empirical observation that the affinity change in a typical lead optimization effort has the tendency to distribute normally N (0, s). Having an analytically defined PI that only depends on the variation in the activities, GRAM should in principle allow us to compare the performance of relative binding affinity prediction methods in a standard way, ultimately critical to measuring the progress made in algorithm development.<br>

Improving the Accuracy of Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction by Deep Learning Models: Benchmark and Model

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mohammad Rezaei ◽  
Yanjun Li ◽  
Xiaolin Li ◽  
Chenglong Li
Keyword(s):  
Deep Learning ◽  
Drug Design ◽  
Binding Affinity ◽  
Benchmark Dataset ◽  
Rational Drug Design ◽  
Learning Models ◽  
Structure Based Drug Design ◽  
Binding Affinity Prediction ◽  
Affinity Prediction ◽  
Rational Drug

<b>Introduction:</b> The ability to discriminate among ligands binding to the same protein target in terms of their relative binding affinity lies at the heart of structure-based drug design. Any improvement in the accuracy and reliability of binding affinity prediction methods decreases the discrepancy between experimental and computational results.<br><b>Objectives:</b> The primary objectives were to find the most relevant features affecting binding affinity prediction, least use of manual feature engineering, and improving the reliability of binding affinity prediction using efficient deep learning models by tuning the model hyperparameters.<br><b>Methods:</b> The binding site of target proteins was represented as a grid box around their bound ligand. Both binary and distance-dependent occupancies were examined for how an atom affects its neighbor voxels in this grid. A combination of different features including ANOLEA, ligand elements, and Arpeggio atom types were used to represent the input. An efficient convolutional neural network (CNN) architecture, DeepAtom, was developed, trained and tested on the PDBbind v2016 dataset. Additionally an extended benchmark dataset was compiled to train and evaluate the models.<br><b>Results: </b>The best DeepAtom model showed an improved accuracy in the binding affinity prediction on PDBbind core subset (Pearson’s R=0.83) and is better than the recent state-of-the-art models in this field. In addition when the DeepAtom model was trained on our proposed benchmark dataset, it yields higher correlation compared to the baseline which confirms the value of our model.<br><b>Conclusions:</b> The promising results for the predicted binding affinities is expected to pave the way for embedding deep learning models in virtual screening and rational drug design fields.

Role of polarization in ligand docking and binding affinity prediction for inhibitors of dengue virus

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (7) ◽  
pp. 1030-1038 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kshatresh Dutta Dubey ◽  
Amit Kumar Chaubey ◽  
Rajendra Prasad Ojha
Keyword(s):  
Dengue Virus ◽  
Binding Affinity ◽  
Ligand Docking ◽  
Binding Affinity Prediction ◽  
Affinity Prediction

scholarly journals Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for protein–ligand binding affinity prediction

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (21) ◽  
pp. 3666-3674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marta M Stepniewska-Dziubinska ◽  
Piotr Zielenkiewicz ◽  
Pawel Siedlecki
Keyword(s):  
Deep Learning ◽  
Ligand Binding ◽  
Binding Affinity ◽  
Learning Model ◽  
Binding Affinity Prediction ◽  
Affinity Prediction ◽  
Deep Learning Model
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document