Abstract

Machine learning (ML) enables modeling of quantitative structure–activity relationships (QSAR) and compound potency predictions. Recently, multi-target QSAR models have been gaining increasing attention. Simultaneous compound potency predictions for multiple targets can be carried out using ensembles of independently derived target-based QSAR models or in a more integrated and advanced manner using multi-target deep neural networks (MT-DNNs). Herein, single-target and multi-target ML models were systematically compared on a large scale in compound potency value predictions for 270 human targets. By design, this large-magnitude evaluation has been a special feature of our study. To these ends, MT-DNN, single-target DNN (ST-DNN), support vector regression (SVR), and random forest regression (RFR) models were implemented. Different test systems were defined to benchmark these ML methods under conditions of varying complexity. Source compounds were divided into training and test sets in a compound- or analog series-based manner taking target information into account. Data partitioning approaches used for model training and evaluation were shown to influence the relative performance of ML methods, especially for the most challenging compound data sets. For example, the performance of MT-DNNs with per-target models yielded superior performance compared to single-target models. For a test compound or its analogs, the availability of potency measurements for multiple targets affected model performance, revealing the influence of ML synergies.

Highlights

  • Machine learning (ML) models are used to relate the chemical structure of compounds to their biological activity and derive qualitative or quantitative structure–activity relationship (Q)SAR models [1,2,3]

  • Deep neural networks (DNNs) have become a method of choice for many investigations, significant advantages compared to other ML methods are not always evident, especially in compound activity/potency predictions

  • There might be specific architectures or hyper-parameter combinations that further boost in performance of DNN models, for hyper-parameter combinations we tested and the increasingly challenging test systems we investigated, there was no advantage over STSVR or -random forest regression (RFR) models

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Machine learning (ML) models are used to relate the chemical structure of compounds to their biological activity and derive qualitative or quantitative structure–activity relationship (Q)SAR models [1,2,3]. Deep neural networks (DNNs) have become a method of choice for many investigations, significant advantages compared to other ML methods are not always evident, especially in compound activity/potency predictions. Despite their high complexity, low interpretability, and the large number of hyper-parameters that need to be optimized, DNNs have been employed to model a variety of data, predict different assay outcomes or various compound properties, and yielded promising results in many instances [7, 9,10,11,12]. Superior performance of DNNs in ML-based QSAR models has not been consistently observed in applications using data sets of different origins and composition [7, 12]

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call