This paper focuses on the application of deep learning to the docking problem within rational drug design. The overall objective of drug design or discovery is to build predictive models of how well a candidate compound (or "ligand") will bind with a target protein, to help inform the decision of what compounds are promising enough to be worth testing in a wet lab. Protein binding prediction is important because many small-molecule drugs, which are designed to be small enough to get through cell membranes, act by binding to a specific protein within a disease pathway, and thus blocking that protein's mechanism. 

The formulation of the docking problem, as best I understand it, is: 

1. A "docking program," which is generally some model based on physical and chemical interactions, takes in a (ligand, target protein) pair, searches over a space of ways the ligand could orient itself within the binding pocket of the protein (which way is it facing, where is it twisted, where does it interact with the protein, etc), and ranks them according to plausibility 
2. A scoring function takes in the binding poses (otherwise known as binding modes) ranked the highest, and tries to predict the affinity strength of the resulting bond, or the binary of whether a bond is "active". 

The goal of this paper was to interpose modern machine learning into the second step, as alternative scoring functions to be applied after the pose generation . Given the complex data structure that is a highly-ranked binding pose, the hope was that deep learning would facilitate learning from such a complicated raw data structure, rather than requiring hand-summarized features. They also tested a similar model structure on the problem of predicting whether a highly ranked binding pose was actually the empirically correct one, as determined by some epsilon ball around the spatial coordinates of the true binding pose. Both of these were binary tasks, which I understand to be 

1. Does this ranked binding pose in this protein have sufficiently high binding affinity to be "active"? This is known as the "virtual screening" task, because it's the relevant task if you want to screen compounds in silico, or virtually, before doing wet lab testing. 
2. Is this ranked binding pose the one that would actually be empirically observed? This is known as the "binding mode prediction" task

The goal of this second task was to better understand biases the researchers suspected existed in the underlying dataset, which I'll explain later in this post. 

The researchers used a graph convolution architecture. At a (very) high level, graph convolution works in a way similar to normal convolution - in that it captures hierarchies of local patterns, in ways that gradually expand to have visibility over larger areas of the input data. The distinction is that normal convolution defines kernels over a fixed set of nearby spatial coordinates, in a context where direction (the pixel on top vs the pixel on bottom, etc) is meaningful, because photos have meaningful direction and orientation. By contrast, in a graph, there is no "up" or "down", and a given node doesn't have a fixed number of neighbors (whereas a fixed pixel in 2D space does), so neighbor-summarization kernels have to be defined in ways that allow you to aggregate information from 1) an arbitrary number of neighbors, in 2) a manner that is agnostic to orientation. Graph convolutions are useful in this problem because both the summary of the ligand itself, and the summary of the interaction of the posed ligand with the protein, can be summarized in terms of graphs of chemical bonds or interaction sites. 

Using this as an architectural foundation, the authors test both solo versions and ensembles of networks: 

https://i.imgur.com/Oc2LACW.png

1. "L" - A network that uses graph convolution to summarize the ligand itself, with no reference to the protein it's being tested for binding affinity with 
2. "LP" - A network that uses graph convolution on the interaction points between the ligand and protein under the binding pose currently being scored or predicted
3. "R" - A simple network that takes into account the rank assigned to the binding pose by the original docking program (generally used in combination with one of the above). 

The authors came to a few interesting findings by trying different combinations of the above model modules. First, they found evidence supporting an earlier claim that, in the dataset being used for training, there was a bias in the positive and negative samples chosen such that you could predict activity of a ligand/protein binding using *ligand information alone.* This shouldn't be possible if we were sampling in an unbiased way over possible ligand/protein pairs, since even ligands that are quite effective with one protein will fail to bind with another, and it shouldn't be informationally possible to distinguish the two cases without protein information. Furthermore, a random forest on hand-designed features was able to perform comparably to deep learning, suggesting that only simple features are necessary to perform the task on this (bias and thus over-simplified)

Specifically, they found that L+LP models did no better than models of L alone on the virtual screening task. However, the binding mode prediction task offered an interesting contrast, in that, on this task, it's impossible to predict the output from ligand information alone, because by construction each ligand will have some set of binding modes that are not the empirically correct one, and one that is, and you can't distinguish between these based on ligand information alone, without looking at the actual protein relationship under consideration. In this case, the LP network did quite well, suggesting that deep learning is able to learn from ligand-protein interactions when it's incentivized to do so. Interestingly, the authors were only able to improve on the baseline model by incorporating the rank output by the original docking program, which you can think of an ensemble of sorts between the docking program and the machine learning model. 

Overall, the authors' takeaways from this paper were that (1) we need to be more careful about constructing datasets, so as to not leak information through biases, and (2) that graph convolutional models are able to perform well, but (3) seem to be capturing different things than physics-based models, since ensembling the two together provides marginal value.