Skip to main content

Ligand-based target predictions in ChEMBL



In case you haven't noticed, ChEMBL_18 has arrived. As usual, it brings new additions, improvements and enhancements both on the data/annotation, as well as on the interface. One of the new features is the target predictions for small molecule drugs. If you go to the compound report card for such a drug, say imatinib or cabozantinib, and scroll down towards the bottom of the page, you'll see two tables with predicted single-protein targets, corresponding to the two models that we used for the predictions. 


 - So what are these models and how were they generated? 

They belong to the family of the so-called ligand-based target prediction methods. That means that the models are trained using ligand information only. Specifically, the model learns what substructural features (encoded as fingerprints) of ligands correlate with activity against a certain target and assign a score to each of these features. Given a new molecule with a new set of features, the model sums the individual feature scores for all the targets and comes up with a sorted list of likely targets with the highest scores. Ligand-based target prediction methods have been quite popular over the last years as they have been proved useful for target-deconvolution and mode-of-action prediction of phenotypic hits / orphan actives. See here for an example of such an approach and here for a comprehensive review.


 - OK, and how where they generated?

As usual, it all started with a carefully selected subset of ChEMBL_18 data containing pairs of compounds and single-protein targets. We used two activity cut-offs, namely 1uM and a more relaxed 10uM, which correspond to two models trained on bioactivity data against 1028 and 1244 targets respectively. KNIME and pandas were used for the data pre-processing. Morgan fingerprints (radius=2) were calculated using RDKit and then used to train a multinomial Naive Bayesian multi-category scikit-learn model. These models then were used to predict targets for the small molecule drugs as mentioned above. 


 - Any validation? 

Besides more trivial property predictions such as logP/logD, this is the first time ChEMBL hosts non experimental/measured data - so this is a big deal and we wanted to try and do this right. First of all, we did a 5-fold stratified cross-validation. But how do you assess a model with a many-to-many relationship between items (compounds) and categories (targets)? For each compound in each of the 5 20% test sets, we got the top 10 ranked predictions. We then checked whether these predictions agree with the known targets for that compound. Ideally, the known target should be correctly predicted at the 1st position of the ranked list, otherwise at the 2nd position, the 3rd and so on. By aggregating over all compounds of all test sets, you get this pie chart:


This means that a known target is correctly predicted by the model at the first attempt (Position 1 in the list of predicted targets) in ~69% of the cases. Actually, only 9% of compounds in the test sets had completely mis-predicted known targets within the top 10 predictions list (Found above 10). 

This is related to precision but what about recall of know targets? here's another chart:



This means that, on average, by considering the top 10 most likely target predictions (<1% of the target pool), the model can correctly predict around ~89% of a compound's known single protein targets. 

Finally, we compared the new open source approach (right) to an established one generated with a commercial workflow environment software (left) using the same data and very similar descriptors:


If you manage to ignore for a moment the slightly different colour coding, you'll see that their predictive performance is pretty much equivalent.

 - It all sounds good, but can I get predictions for my own compounds?

We could provide the models and examples in IPython Notebook on how to use these on another blog post that will follow soon. There are also plans for a publicly available target prediction web service, something like SMILES to predicted targets. Actually, if you would be interested in this, or if you have any feedback or suggestions for the target prediction functionality, let us know

George

Comments

Unknown said…
Very nice post, cheers!
Unknown said…
Any thoughts on the domain of validity in chemical space of these models? Do you expect them to work well across all of chembl, and if not can you specify what compounds they will fail on?
Unknown said…
Thank You for the very interesting work! I have some questions. First of all, i don't quite understand your validation technique. For example: a compound has 3 targets. Target 1 was found at the first position; target 2 was found at the second position and target 3 was not found in top 10 list of predictions. What did you do exactly in similar cases? Second, how many compounds are there in your training set?

Popular posts from this blog

ChEMBL & SureChEMBL anniversary symposium

  In 2024 we celebrate the 15th anniversary of the first public release of the ChEMBL database as well as the 10th anniversary of SureChEMBL. To recognise this important landmark we are organising a two-day symposium to celebrate the work achieved by ChEMBL and SureChEMBL, and look forward to its future.   Save the date for the ChEMBL 15 Year Symposium October 1-2, 2024     Day one will consist of four workshops, a basic ChEMBL drug design workshop; an advanced ChEMBL workshop (EUbOPEN community workshop); a ChEMBL data deposition workshop; and a SureChEMBL workshop. Day two will consist of a series of talks from invited speakers, a few poster flash talks, a local nature walk, as well as celebratory cake. During the breaks, the poster session will be a great opportunity to catch up with other users and collaborators of the ChEMBL resources and chat to colleagues, co-workers and others to find out more about how the database is being used. Lunch and refreshments will be pro

ChEMBL 34 is out!

We are delighted to announce the release of ChEMBL 34, which includes a full update to drug and clinical candidate drug data. This version of the database, prepared on 28/03/2024 contains:         2,431,025 compounds (of which 2,409,270 have mol files)         3,106,257 compound records (non-unique compounds)         20,772,701 activities         1,644,390 assays         15,598 targets         89,892 documents Data can be downloaded from the ChEMBL FTP site:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/ Please see ChEMBL_34 release notes for full details of all changes in this release:  https://ftp.ebi.ac.uk/pub/databases/chembl/ChEMBLdb/releases/chembl_34/chembl_34_release_notes.txt New Data Sources European Medicines Agency (src_id = 66): European Medicines Agency's data correspond to EMA drugs prior to 20 January 2023 (excluding vaccines). 71 out of the 882 newly added EMA drugs are only authorised by EMA, rather than from other regulatory bodies e.g.

A python client for accessing ChEMBL web services

Motivation The CheMBL Web Services provide simple reliable programmatic access to the data stored in ChEMBL database. RESTful API approaches are quite easy to master in most languages but still require writing a few lines of code. Additionally, it can be a challenging task to write a nontrivial application using REST without any examples. These factors were the motivation for us to write a small client library for accessing web services from Python. Why Python? We choose this language because Python has become extremely popular (and still growing in use) in scientific applications; there are several Open Source chemical toolkits available in this language, and so the wealth of ChEMBL resources and functionality of those toolkits can be easily combined. Moreover, Python is a very web-friendly language and we wanted to show how easy complex resource acquisition can be expressed in Python. Reinventing the wheel? There are already some libraries providing access to ChEMBL d

Accessing SureChEMBL data in bulk

It is the peak of the summer (at least in this hemisphere) and many of our readers/users will be on holiday, perhaps on an island enjoying the sea. Luckily, for the rest of us there is still the 'sea' of SureChEMBL data that awaits to be enjoyed and explored for hidden 'treasures' (let me know if I pushed this analogy too far). See here and  here for a reminder of SureChEMBL is and what it does.  This wealth of (big) data can be accessed via the SureChEMBL interface , where users can submit quite sophisticated and granular queries by combining: i) Lucene fields against full-text and bibliographic metadata and ii) advanced structure query features against the annotated compound corpus. Examples of such queries will be the topic of a future post. Once the search results are back, users can browse through and export the chemistry from the patent(s) of interest. In addition to this functionality, we've been receiving user requests for  local (behind the