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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |