Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 10, 2026

Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA
Published on: February 23, 2024
A multi-label approach to target prediction taking ligand promiscuity into account
Avid M Afzal1, Hamse Y Mussa1, Richard E Turner2
1Department of Chemistry, Centre for Molecular Informatics, University of Cambridge, Lensfield Road, Cambridge, CB2 1EW UK.
Background:
According to Cobanoglu et al., it is now widely acknowledged that the single target paradigm (one protein/target, one disease, one drug) that has been the dominant premise in drug development in the recent past is untenable. More often than not, a drug-like compound (ligand) can be promiscuous - it can interact with more than one target protein. In recent years, in in silico target prediction methods the promiscuity issue has generally been approached computationally in three main ways: ligand-based methods; target-protein-based methods; and integrative schemes. In this study we confine attention to ligand-based target prediction machine learning approaches, commonly referred to as target-fishing. The target-fishing approaches that are currently ubiquitous in cheminformatics literature can be essentially viewed as single-label multi-classification schemes; these approaches inherently bank on the single target paradigm assumption that a ligand can zero in on one single target. In order to address the ligand promiscuity issue, one might be able to cast target-fishing as a multi-label multi-class classification problem. For illustrative and comparison purposes, single-label and multi-label Naïve Bayes classification models (denoted here by SMM and MMM, respectively) for target-fishing were implemented. The models were constructed and tested on 65,587 compounds/ligands and 308 targets retrieved from the ChEMBL17 database.
Results:
On classifying 3,332 test multi-label (promiscuous) compounds, SMM and MMM performed differently. At the 0.05 significance level, a Wilcoxon signed rank test performed on the paired target predictions yielded by SMM and MMM for the test ligands gave a p-value < 5.1 × 10(-94) and test statistics value of 6.8 × 10(5), in favour of MMM. The two models performed differently when tested on four datasets comprising single-label (non-promiscuous) compounds; McNemar's test yielded χ (2) values of 15.657, 16.500 and 16.405 (with corresponding p-values of 7.594 × 10(-05), 4.865 × 10(-05) and 5.115 × 10(-05)), respectively, for three test sets, in favour of MMM. The models performed similarly on the fourth set.
Conclusions:
The target prediction results obtained in this study indicate that multi-label multi-class approaches are more apt than the ubiquitous single-label multi-class schemes when it comes to the application of ligand-based classifiers to target-fishing.
More Related Videos
05:50Pharmacophore Modeling for Targets with Extensive Ligand Libraries: A Case Study on SARS-CoV-2 Mpro
Published on: September 26, 2025
06:50Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
Published on: January 26, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Ligand Binding Sites
Protein-ligand interactions are quite specific; even though numerous potential ligands surround a cellular protein at any given time, only a particular ligand can bind to that protein. Moreover, a ligand binds only to a dedicated area on the surface of the protein, known as the...
Ligand Binding Sites
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally...
Ligand Binding and Linkage
Ligand Binding and Linkage
The Two-State Receptor Model
The binding affinity of a drug determines its interaction with...