Deep Learning as an Opportunity in Virtual Screening

Deep learning excels in vision and speech applications where it pushed the stateof-the-art to a new level. However its impact on other fields remains to be shown. The Merck Kaggle challenge on chemical compound activity was won by Hinton’s group with deep networks. This indicates the high potential of deep learning in drug design and attracted the attention of big pharma. However, the unrealistically small scale of the Kaggle dataset does not allow to assess the value of deep learning in drug target prediction if applied to in-house data of pharmaceutical companies. Even a publicly available drug activity data base like ChEMBL is magnitudes larger than the Kaggle dataset. ChEMBL has 13 M compound descriptors, 1.3 M compounds, and 5 k drug targets, compared to the Kaggle dataset with 11 k descriptors, 164 k compounds, and 15 drug targets. On the ChEMBL database, we compared the performance of deep learning to seven target prediction methods, including two commercial predictors, three predictors deployed by pharma, and machine learning methods that we could scale to this dataset. Deep learning outperformed all other methods with respect to the area under ROC curve and was significantly better than all commercial products. Deep learning surpassed the threshold to make virtual compound screening possible and has the potential to become a standard tool in industrial drug design. ∗These authors contributed equally to this work

[1]  L. Kier Molecular Orbital Theory In Drug Research , 1971 .

[2]  Rich Caruana,et al.  Multitask Learning , 1998, Encyclopedia of Machine Learning and Data Mining.

[3]  Shu-Kun Lin Pharmacophore Perception, Development and Use in Drug Design. Edited by Osman F. Güner , 2000 .

[4]  Darren V. S. Green,et al.  Prediction of Biological Activity for High-Throughput Screening Using Binary Kernel Discrimination , 2001, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[5]  Jens Sadowski,et al.  Comparison of Support Vector Machine and Artificial Neural Network Systems for Drug/Nondrug Classification , 2003, J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci..

[6]  J. Bajorath,et al.  Docking and scoring in virtual screening for drug discovery: methods and applications , 2004, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[7]  Xiaoyang Xia,et al.  Classification of kinase inhibitors using a Bayesian model. , 2004, Journal of medicinal chemistry.

[8]  A. Bender,et al.  In silico target fishing: Predicting biological targets from chemical structure , 2006 .

[9]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Relating protein pharmacology by ligand chemistry , 2007, Nature Biotechnology.

[10]  Andreas Bender,et al.  Ligand-Target Prediction Using Winnow and Naive Bayesian Algorithms and the Implications of Overall Performance Statistics , 2008, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[11]  Yanli Wang,et al.  PubChem: Integrated Platform of Small Molecules and Biological Activities , 2008 .

[12]  J. Mestres,et al.  A ligand-based approach to mining the chemogenomic space of drugs. , 2008, Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening.

[13]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Off-target networks derived from ligand set similarity. , 2009, Methods in molecular biology.

[14]  Michael J. Keiser,et al.  Predicting new molecular targets for known drugs , 2009, Nature.

[15]  Charles C. Persinger,et al.  How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Rectified Linear Units Improve Restricted Boltzmann Machines , 2010, ICML.

[17]  David Rogers,et al.  Extended-Connectivity Fingerprints , 2010, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[18]  Chih-Jen Lin,et al.  LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines , 2011, TIST.

[19]  Robert C. Glen,et al.  Classifying Molecules Using a Sparse Probabilistic Kernel Binary Classifier , 2011, J. Chem. Inf. Model..

[20]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Deep Sparse Rectifier Neural Networks , 2011, AISTATS.

[21]  J. Arrowsmith Trial watch: Phase III and submission failures: 2007–2010 , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[22]  P. Willett,et al.  PHARMACOPHORE PERCEPTION , DEVELOPMENT , AND USE IN DRUG DESIGN , 2011 .

[23]  Nitish Srivastava,et al.  Improving neural networks by preventing co-adaptation of feature detectors , 2012, ArXiv.

[24]  John B. O. Mitchell,et al.  Predicting the mechanism of phospholipidosis , 2012, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[25]  John P. Overington,et al.  ChEMBL: a large-scale bioactivity database for drug discovery , 2011, Nucleic Acids Res..

[26]  J. Scannell,et al.  Diagnosing the decline in pharmaceutical R&D efficiency , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[27]  Robert C. Glen,et al.  Full “Laplacianised” posterior naive Bayesian algorithm , 2013, Journal of Cheminformatics.

[28]  Pascal Vincent,et al.  Representation Learning: A Review and New Perspectives , 2012, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[29]  Geoffrey Zweig,et al.  Recent advances in deep learning for speech research at Microsoft , 2013, 2013 IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech and Signal Processing.

[30]  Yoshua Bengio,et al.  Deep Learning of Representations: Looking Forward , 2013, SLSP.

[31]  P. Baldi,et al.  Deep Learning in High-Energy Physics: Improving the Search for Exotic Particles , 2014 .

[32]  Michael Hay,et al.  Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs , 2014, Nature Biotechnology.