Accuracy or novelty: what can we gain from target-specific machine-learning-based scoring functions in virtual screening?

Machine-learning (ML)-based scoring functions (MLSFs) have gradually emerged as a promising alternative for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction and structure-based virtual screening. However, clouds of doubts have still been raised against the benefits of this novel type of scoring functions (SFs). In this study, to benchmark the performance of target-specific MLSF5 on a relatively unbiased dataset, the MLSFs trained from three representative protein-ligand interaction representations were assessed on the LIT-PCBA dataset, and the classical Glide SP SF and three types of ligand-based quantitative structure-activity relationship (QSAR) models were also utilized for comparison. TWo major aspects in virtual screening campaigns, including prediction accuracy and hit novelty, were systematically explored. The calculation results illustrate that the tested target-specific MLSFs yielded generally superior performance over the classical Glide SP SF, but they could hardly outperform the 2D fingerprint-based QSAR models. Although substantial improvements could be achieved by integrating multiple types of protein-ligand interaction features, the MLSFs were still not sufficient to exceed MACCS-based QSAR models. In terms of the correlations between the hit ranks or the structures of the top-ranked hits, the MLSFs developed by different featurization strategies would have the ability to identify quite different hits. Nevertheless, it seems that target-specific MLSFs do not have the intrinsic attributes of a traditional SF and may not be a substitute for classical SFs. In contrast, MLSFs can be regarded as a new derivative of ligand-based QSAR models. It is expected that our study may provide valuable guidance for the assessment and further development of target-specific MLSFs.

Automated summary

Machine-learning-based scoring functions have shown promising results in predicting protein-ligand binding affinity and virtual screening, outperforming classical scoring functions in some aspects. However, they still fall short compared to 2D fingerprint-based QSAR models. Integrating multiple types of protein-ligand interaction features can lead to improvements, but may not surpass MACCS-based QSAR models.