Tag Archives: Small Molecules

Paper review: “EquiBind”

Molecular docking helps us understand how small-molecules interact with proteins. This is especially useful in early drug development stages such as target identification and compound screening. Quick and accurate docking software allows researchers to focus their attention on a smaller set of lead molecules for further testing. Traditionally, docking software has employed first principles from physics and chemistry. Recently, deep learning has become all the rage for molecular docking, maybe motivated by the successful application of deep learning to molecular folding.

Method

EquiBind is a deep learning unconstrained docking method which models a fixed receptor and a ligand with selected rotatable bonds. It predicts the binding pocket and the ligand’s conformation within the pocket in one go. Under the hood, EquiBind employs two great ideas from a recent ICLR 2022 Paper: a SE3-invariant graph neural network based architecture and the idea to generate fixed sets of matching key points to define a rotation and translation between receptor and ligand. In addition, the authors innovate a fast method to project a deformed ligand onto the space spanned by the rotatable bonds of a pre-generated ligand conformation.

Continue reading →

Post-processing for molecular docking: Assigning the correct bond order using RDKit.

AutoDock4 and AutoDock Vina are the most commonly used open-source software for protein-ligand docking. However, they both rely on a derivative of the “PDB” (Protein Data Base) file format: the “PDBQT” file (Protein Data Bank, Partial Charge (Q), & Atom Type (T)). In addition to the information contained in normal PDB files, PDBQT files have an additional column that lists the partial charge (Q) and the assigned AutoDock atom type (T) for each atom in the molecule. AutoDock atom types offer a more granular differentiation between atoms such as listing aliphatic carbons and aromatic carbons as separate AutoDock atom types.

The biggest drawback about the PDBQT format is that it does not encode for the bond order in molecules explicitly. Instead, the bond order is inferred based on the atom type, distance and angle to nearby atoms in the molecule. For normal sp3 carbons and molecules with mostly single bonds this system works fine, however, for more complex structures containing for example aromatic rings, conjugated systems and hypervalent atoms such as sulphur, the bond order is often not displayed correctly. This leads to issues downstream in the screening pipeline when molecules suddenly change their bond order or have to be discarded after docking because of impossible bond orders.

The solution to this problem is included in RDKit: The AssignBondOrdersFromTemplate function. All you need to do is load the original molecule used for docking as a template molecule and the docked pose PDBQT file into RDKIT as a PDB, without the bond order information. Then assign the original bond order from your template molecule. The following code snippet covers the necessary functions and should help you build a more accurate and reproducible protein-ligand docking pipeline:

#import RDKit AllChem
from rdkit import Chem
from rdkit.Chem import AllChem


#load original molecule from smiles
SMILES_STRING = "CCCCCCCCC" #the smiles string of your ligand
template = Chem.MolFromSmiles(SMILES_STRING)

#load the docked pose as a PDB file
loc_of_docked_pose = "docked_pose_mol.pdb" #file location of the docked pose converted to PDB file
docked_pose = AllChem.MolFromPDBFile(loc_of_docked_pose)

#Assign the bond order to force correct valence
newMol = AllChem.AssignBondOrdersFromTemplate(template, docked_pose)

#Add Hydrogens if desired. "addCoords = True" makes sure the hydrogens are added in 3D. This does not take pH/pKa into account. 
newMol_H = Chem.AddHs(newMol, addCoords=True)

#save your new correct molecule as a sdf file that encodes for bond orders correctly
output_loc = "docked_pose_assigned_bond_order.sdf" #output file name
Chem.MolToMolFile(newMol_H, output_loc)

How to turn a SMILES string into a molecular graph for Pytorch Geometric

Despite some of their technical issues, graph neural networks (GNNs) are quickly being adopted as one of the state-of-the-art methods for molecular property prediction. The differentiable extraction of molecular features from low-level molecular graphs has become a viable (although not always superior) alternative to classical molecular representation techniques such as Morgan fingerprints and molecular descriptor vectors.

But molecular data usually comes in the sequential form of labeled SMILES strings. It is not obvious for beginners how to optimally transform a SMILES string into a structured molecular graph object that can be used as an input for a GNN. In this post, we show how to convert a SMILES string into a molecular graph object which can subsequently be used for graph-based machine learning. We do so within the framework of Pytorch Geometric which currently is one of the best and most commonly used Python-based GNN-libraries.

We divide our task into three high-level steps:

  1. We define a function that maps an RDKit atom object to a suitable atom feature vector.
  2. We define a function that maps an RDKit bond object to a suitable bond feature vector.
  3. We define a function that takes as its input a list of SMILES strings and associated labels and then uses the functions from 1.) and 2.) to create a list of labeled Pytorch Geometric graph objects as its output.
Continue reading →

Issues with graph neural networks: the cracks are where the light shines through

Deep convolutional neural networks have lead to astonishing breakthroughs in the area of computer vision in recent years. The reason for the extraordinary performance of convolutional architectures in the image domain is their strong ability to extract informative high-level features from visual data. For prediction tasks on images, this has lead to superhuman performance in a variety of applications and to an almost universal shift from classical feature engineering to differentiable feature learning.

Unfortunately, the picture is not quite as rosy yet in the area of molecular machine learning. Feature learning techniques which operate directly on raw molecular graphs without intermediate feature-engineering steps have only emerged in the last few years in the form of graph neural networks (GNNs). GNNs, however, still have not managed to definitively outcompete and replace more classical non-differentiable molecular representation methods such as extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs). There is an increasing awareness in the computational chemistry community that GNNs have not quite lived up to the initial hype and still suffer from a number of technical limitations.

Continue reading →

Watch out when using PDBbind!

Now that PDBbind 2020 has been released, I want to draw some attention to an issue with using the SDF files that are supplied in the PDBbind refined set 2020.

Normally, SDF files save the chirality information of compounds in the atom block of the file which is shown belowas a snipped of the full sdf file for the ligand of PDB entry 4qsv. The column that defines chirality is marked in red.

As you can see, all columns shown here are 0. The SDF files supplied by PDBbind for some reason do NOT encode chirality information explicitly. This will be a problem when using RDKit to read the molecule and transform it into a smiles string. By using the following commands to read the ligand for 4qsv from PDBBind 2020 and write a SMILES string, we get:

Continue reading →

Out-of-distribution generalisation and scaffold splitting in molecular property prediction

The ability to successfully apply previously acquired knowledge to novel and unfamiliar situations is one of the main hallmarks of successful learning and general intelligence. This capability to effectively generalise is amongst the most desirable properties a prediction model (or a mind, for that matter) can have.

In supervised machine learning, the standard way to evaluate the generalisation power of a prediction model for a given task is to randomly split the whole available data set X into two sets – a training set X_{\text{train}} and a test set X_{\text{test}}. The model is then subsequently trained on the examples in the training set X_{\text{train}} and afterwards its prediction abilities are measured on the untouched examples in the test set X_{\text{test}} via a suitable performance metric.

Since in this scenario the model has never seen any of the examples in X_{\text{test}} during training, its performance on X_{\text{test}} must be indicative of its performance on novel data X_{\text{new}} which it will encounter in the future. Right?

Continue reading →

NeurIPS 2020: Chemistry / Biology papers

Another blog post, another look at accepted papers for a major ML conference. NeurIPS joins the other major machine learning conferences (and others) in moving virtual this year, running from 6th – 12th December 2020. In a continuation of past posts (ICML 2020, NeurIPS 2019), I will highlight several of potential interest to the chem-/bio-informatics communities

The list of accepted papers can be found here, with 1,903 papers accepted out of 9,467 submissions (20% acceptance rate).

In addition to the main conference, there are several workshops highly related to the type of research undertaken in OPIG: Machine Learning in Structural Biology and Machine Learning for Molecules.

The usual caveat: given the large number of papers, these were selected either by “accident” (i.e. I stumbled across them in one way or another) or through a basic search (e.g. Ctrl+f “molecule”). If you find any I have missed, please reach out and I will update accordingly.

Continue reading →

ICML 2020: Chemistry / Biology papers

ICML is one of the largest machine learning conferences and, like many other conferences this year, is running virtually from 12th – 18th July.

The list of accepted papers can be found here, with 1,088 papers accepted out of 4,990 submissions (22% acceptance rate). Similar to my post on NeurIPS 2019 papers, I will highlight several of potential interest to the chem-/bio-informatics communities. As before, given the large number of papers, these were selected either by “accident” (i.e. I stumbled across them in one way or another) or through a basic search (e.g. Ctrl+f “molecule”).

Continue reading →

NeurIPS 2019: Chemistry/Biology papers

NeurIPS is the largest machine learning conference (by number of participants), with over 8,000 in 2017. This year, the conference will be held in Vancouver, Canada from 8th-14th December.

Recently, the list of accepted papers was announced, with 1430 papers accepted. Here, I will highlight several of potential interest to the chem-/bio-informatics communities. Given the large number of papers, these were selected either by “accident” (i.e. I stumbled across them in one way or another) or through a basic search (e.g. Ctrl+f “molecule”).

Continue reading →

Experimental Binding Modes of Small Molecules in Protein-Ligand Docking

Protein-ligand docking tends to be very good at generating binding modes that resemble experimental binding modes from X-ray crystallography and other methods (assuming we have a high quality structure…); but it is also very good at generating plausible models for ligands that don’t bind. These so-called “false positives” lead to reduced accuracy in structure-based virtual screening campaigns.

Structure-based methods are not the only way of approaching virtual screening: when all we know is the chemical structure of an active molecule, but nothing about its target (or targets), we can use ligand-based virtual screening methods, which operate on the principle of molecular similarity (Maggiora et al., 2014).

But what if we combine both methods?

Continue reading →