Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jan 31;28(3):1342.
doi: 10.3390/molecules28031342.

Molecular Toxicity Virtual Screening Applying a Quantized Computational SNN-Based Framework

Affiliations

Molecular Toxicity Virtual Screening Applying a Quantized Computational SNN-Based Framework

Mauro Nascimben et al. Molecules. .

Abstract

Spiking neural networks are biologically inspired machine learning algorithms attracting researchers' attention for their applicability to alternative energy-efficient hardware other than traditional computers. In the current work, spiking neural networks have been tested in a quantitative structure-activity analysis targeting the toxicity of molecules. Multiple public-domain databases of compounds have been evaluated with spiking neural networks, achieving accuracies compatible with high-quality frameworks presented in the previous literature. The numerical experiments also included an analysis of hyperparameters and tested the spiking neural networks on molecular fingerprints of different lengths. Proposing alternatives to traditional software and hardware for time- and resource-consuming tasks, such as those found in chemoinformatics, may open the door to new research and improvements in the field.

Keywords: in silico toxicity prediction; machine learning; molecular fingerprints; spiking neural networks.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Visual summary of meta-analysis on Tox21. Standard deviation was included if reported in the original papers. AUC values from [40,41,42,43,44,45,47,48].
Figure 2
Figure 2
Classification of side effects of chemicals from SIDER dataset in the present and other works. AUC included from [45,52].
Figure 3
Figure 3
Outcomes for BBBP and Clintox compared to the previous literature. AUC values as reported in [40,41,46,49,51,53,54,55,56].
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overview of the procedure during the numerical experiments. The input bit strings were created from SMILES, and a binary label accompanied each instance. The binary sequences were input directly to the SNN, which was evaluated by nested cross-validation with an inner loop for model selection and an outer loop for evaluating the quality of the outcomes.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Membrane potential in LIF neurons is modeled receiving a binary train as input and producing a binary output in response: only when membrane potential is over-threshold do LIF neurons fire a spike marked by ones in the output sequence.
Figure 6
Figure 6
LIF circuit equivalent. A parallel resistor and capacitor represent the neuron, a configuration that could easily describe membrane behavior and, at the same time, is effortlessly implementable on silicon chips.
Figure 7
Figure 7
Exemplification of the common SNN architectures. All SNNs employed were shallow with one hidden layer. The fingerprints’ bits were passed to the input layer, whereas the last layer firing counts determined the predicted class.

Similar articles

References

    1. Mitchell J.B. Machine learning methods in chemoinformatics. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Comput. Mol. Sci. 2014;4:468–481. doi: 10.1002/wcms.1183. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Neves B.J., Braga R.C., Melo-Filho C.C., Moreira-Filho J.T., Muratov E.N., Andrade C.H. QSAR-Based Virtual Screening: Advances and Applications in Drug Discovery. Front. Pharmacol. 2018;9:1275. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2018.01275. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cherkasov A., Muratov E.N., Fourches D., Varnek A., Baskin I.I., Cronin M., Dearden J., Gramatica P., Martin Y.C., Todeschini R., et al. QSAR modeling: Where have you been? Where are you going to? J. Med. Chem. 2014;57:4977–5010. doi: 10.1021/jm4004285. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Svetnik V., Liaw A., Tong C., Culberson J.C., Sheridan R.P., Feuston B.P. Random forest: A classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. J. Chem. Inf. Comput. Sci. 2003;43:1947–1958. doi: 10.1021/ci034160g. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Polishchuk P.G., Muratov E.N., Artemenko A.G., Kolumbin O.G., Muratov N.N., Kuz’min V.E. Application of random forest approach to QSAR prediction of aquatic toxicity. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2009;49:2481–2488. doi: 10.1021/ci900203n. - DOI - PubMed

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources