» Articles » PMID: 34885952

Virtual Screening with Gnina 1.0

Overview
Journal Molecules
Publisher MDPI
Specialty Biology
Date 2021 Dec 10
PMID 34885952
Citations 19
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Virtual screening-predicting which compounds within a specified compound library bind to a target molecule, typically a protein-is a fundamental task in the field of drug discovery. Doing virtual screening well provides tangible practical benefits, including reduced drug development costs, faster time to therapeutic viability, and fewer unforeseen side effects. As with most applied computational tasks, the algorithms currently used to perform virtual screening feature inherent tradeoffs between speed and accuracy. Furthermore, even theoretically rigorous, computationally intensive methods may fail to account for important effects relevant to whether a given compound will ultimately be usable as a drug. Here we investigate the virtual screening performance of the recently released Gnina molecular docking software, which uses deep convolutional networks to score protein-ligand structures. We find, on average, that Gnina outperforms conventional empirical scoring. The default scoring in Gnina outperforms the empirical AutoDock Vina scoring function on 89 of the 117 targets of the DUD-E and LIT-PCBA virtual screening benchmarks with a median 1% early enrichment factor that is more than twice that of Vina. However, we also find that issues of bias linger in these sets, even when not used directly to train models, and this bias obfuscates to what extent machine learning models are achieving their performance through a sophisticated interpretation of molecular interactions versus fitting to non-informative simplistic property distributions.

Citing Articles

GNINA 1.3: the next increment in molecular docking with deep learning.

McNutt A, Li Y, Meli R, Aggarwal R, Koes D J Cheminform. 2025; 17(1):28.

PMID: 40025560 PMC: 11874439. DOI: 10.1186/s13321-025-00973-x.


Scaling Structure Aware Virtual Screening to Billions of Molecules with SPRINT.

McNutt A, Adduri A, Ellington C, Dayao M, Xing E, Mohimani H ArXiv. 2025; .

PMID: 39975427 PMC: 11838698.


A human metabolic map of pharmacological perturbations reveals drug modes of action.

Schuhknecht L, Ortmayr K, Janes J, Blasi M, Panoussis E, Bors S Nat Biotechnol. 2025; .

PMID: 39875672 DOI: 10.1038/s41587-024-02524-5.


CACHE Challenge #1: Docking with GNINA Is All You Need.

Dunn I, Pirhadi S, Wang Y, Ravindran S, Concepcion C, Koes D J Chem Inf Model. 2024; 64(24):9388-9396.

PMID: 39654129 PMC: 11683865. DOI: 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01429.


Virtual Screening, Molecular Dynamics, and Mechanism Study of Homeodomain-Interacting Protein Kinase 2 Inhibitor in Renal Fibroblasts.

Hu X, Wu Y, Ouyang H, Wu J, Yao M, Chen Z Pharmaceuticals (Basel). 2024; 17(11).

PMID: 39598332 PMC: 11597050. DOI: 10.3390/ph17111420.


References
1.
Korb O, Stutzle T, Exner T . Empirical scoring functions for advanced protein-ligand docking with PLANTS. J Chem Inf Model. 2009; 49(1):84-96. DOI: 10.1021/ci800298z. View

2.
McNutt A, Francoeur P, Aggarwal R, Masuda T, Meli R, Ragoza M . GNINA 1.0: molecular docking with deep learning. J Cheminform. 2021; 13(1):43. PMC: 8191141. DOI: 10.1186/s13321-021-00522-2. View

3.
Wojcikowski M, Ballester P, Siedlecki P . Performance of machine-learning scoring functions in structure-based virtual screening. Sci Rep. 2017; 7:46710. PMC: 5404222. DOI: 10.1038/srep46710. View

4.
Ballester P, Mitchell J . A machine learning approach to predicting protein-ligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics. 2010; 26(9):1169-75. PMC: 3524828. DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq112. View

5.
Huang N, Shoichet B, Irwin J . Benchmarking sets for molecular docking. J Med Chem. 2006; 49(23):6789-801. PMC: 3383317. DOI: 10.1021/jm0608356. View