Cargando…

The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction

It has recently been claimed that the outstanding performance of machine-learning scoring functions (SFs) is exclusively due to the presence of training complexes with highly similar proteins to those in the test set. Here, we revisit this question using 24 similarity-based training sets, a widely u...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Hongjian, Peng, Jiangjun, Leung, Yee, Leung, Kwong-Sak, Wong, Man-Hon, Lu, Gang, Ballester, Pedro J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29538331
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom8010012
_version_ 1783309736399077376
author Li, Hongjian
Peng, Jiangjun
Leung, Yee
Leung, Kwong-Sak
Wong, Man-Hon
Lu, Gang
Ballester, Pedro J.
author_facet Li, Hongjian
Peng, Jiangjun
Leung, Yee
Leung, Kwong-Sak
Wong, Man-Hon
Lu, Gang
Ballester, Pedro J.
author_sort Li, Hongjian
collection PubMed
description It has recently been claimed that the outstanding performance of machine-learning scoring functions (SFs) is exclusively due to the presence of training complexes with highly similar proteins to those in the test set. Here, we revisit this question using 24 similarity-based training sets, a widely used test set, and four SFs. Three of these SFs employ machine learning instead of the classical linear regression approach of the fourth SF (X-Score which has the best test set performance out of 16 classical SFs). We have found that random forest (RF)-based RF-Score-v3 outperforms X-Score even when 68% of the most similar proteins are removed from the training set. In addition, unlike X-Score, RF-Score-v3 is able to keep learning with an increasing training set size, becoming substantially more predictive than X-Score when the full 1105 complexes are used for training. These results show that machine-learning SFs owe a substantial part of their performance to training on complexes with dissimilar proteins to those in the test set, against what has been previously concluded using the same data. Given that a growing amount of structural and interaction data will be available from academic and industrial sources, this performance gap between machine-learning SFs and classical SFs is expected to enlarge in the future.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5871981
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58719812018-03-30 The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction Li, Hongjian Peng, Jiangjun Leung, Yee Leung, Kwong-Sak Wong, Man-Hon Lu, Gang Ballester, Pedro J. Biomolecules Article It has recently been claimed that the outstanding performance of machine-learning scoring functions (SFs) is exclusively due to the presence of training complexes with highly similar proteins to those in the test set. Here, we revisit this question using 24 similarity-based training sets, a widely used test set, and four SFs. Three of these SFs employ machine learning instead of the classical linear regression approach of the fourth SF (X-Score which has the best test set performance out of 16 classical SFs). We have found that random forest (RF)-based RF-Score-v3 outperforms X-Score even when 68% of the most similar proteins are removed from the training set. In addition, unlike X-Score, RF-Score-v3 is able to keep learning with an increasing training set size, becoming substantially more predictive than X-Score when the full 1105 complexes are used for training. These results show that machine-learning SFs owe a substantial part of their performance to training on complexes with dissimilar proteins to those in the test set, against what has been previously concluded using the same data. Given that a growing amount of structural and interaction data will be available from academic and industrial sources, this performance gap between machine-learning SFs and classical SFs is expected to enlarge in the future. MDPI 2018-03-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5871981/ /pubmed/29538331 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom8010012 Text en © 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Li, Hongjian
Peng, Jiangjun
Leung, Yee
Leung, Kwong-Sak
Wong, Man-Hon
Lu, Gang
Ballester, Pedro J.
The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title_full The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title_fullStr The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title_full_unstemmed The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title_short The Impact of Protein Structure and Sequence Similarity on the Accuracy of Machine-Learning Scoring Functions for Binding Affinity Prediction
title_sort impact of protein structure and sequence similarity on the accuracy of machine-learning scoring functions for binding affinity prediction
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5871981/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29538331
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biom8010012
work_keys_str_mv AT lihongjian theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT pengjiangjun theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT leungyee theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT leungkwongsak theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT wongmanhon theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT lugang theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT ballesterpedroj theimpactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT lihongjian impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT pengjiangjun impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT leungyee impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT leungkwongsak impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT wongmanhon impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT lugang impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction
AT ballesterpedroj impactofproteinstructureandsequencesimilarityontheaccuracyofmachinelearningscoringfunctionsforbindingaffinityprediction