Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength02:18

The Equilibrium Binding Constant and Binding Strength

12.9K
The equilibrium binding constant (Kb) quantifies the strength of a protein-ligand interaction. Kb can be calculated as follows when the reaction is at equilibrium:
12.9K
Ligand Binding Sites02:40

Ligand Binding Sites

12.8K
Proteins are dynamic macromolecules that carry out a wide variety of essential processes; however, the activities of most proteins depend on their interactions with other molecules or ions, known as ligands.
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...
12.8K
Conserved Binding Sites01:49

Conserved Binding Sites

4.2K
Many proteins’ biological role depends on their interactions with their ligands, small molecules that bind to specific locations on the protein known as ligand-binding sites. Ligand-binding sites are often conserved among homologous proteins as these sites are critical for protein function.
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...
4.2K
Ligand Binding and Linkage00:49

Ligand Binding and Linkage

4.8K
Allosteric proteins have more than one ligand binding site; the binding of a ligand to any of these sites influences the binding of ligands to the other sites. When a protein is allosteric, its binding sites are called coupled or linked.  In the case of enzymes, the site that binds to the substrate is known as the active site and the other site is known as the regulatory site. When a ligand binds to the regulatory site, this leads to conformational changes in the protein that can influence...
4.8K
Protein-protein Interfaces02:04

Protein-protein Interfaces

12.5K
Many proteins form complexes to carry out their functions, making protein-protein interactions (PPIs) essential for an organism's survival. Most PPIs are stabilized by numerous weak noncovalent chemical forces. The physical shape of the interfaces determines the way two proteins interact. Many globular proteins have closely-matching shapes on their surfaces, which form a large number of weak bonds. Additionally, many PPIs occur between two helices or between a surface cleft and a...
12.5K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Accurate and robust analysis of molecular kinetics with random features.

The Journal of chemical physics·2026
Same author

A Computational Community Blind Challenge on Pan-Coronavirus Drug Discovery Data.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same author

A simple compound prioritization method for drug discovery considering multi-target binding.

Digital discovery·2026
Same author

Learning Binding Affinities via Fine-Tuning of Protein and Ligand Language Models.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2025
Same author

IR Spectroscopy: From Experimental Spectra to High-Resolution Structural Analysis by Integrating Simulations and Machine Learning.

The journal of physical chemistry. B·2025
Same author

New Machine Learning Models for Predicting the Organic Cation Transporters OCT1, OCT2, and OCT3 Uptake.

ACS omega·2025
Same journal

PSDTA: An Approach to Drug-Target Binding Affinity Prediction by Integrating Physicochemical and Structural Information to Reduce Feature Redundancy.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same journal

M-JEPA: Predictive Self-Supervised Learning for Molecular Graphs with Scaffold-Shift Evaluation on Tox21.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same journal

Advancing Biochemical Molecule Registration, Representation and Search for New Drug Modalities.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same journal

A Unified Molecular Graph and Protein Language Model Framework for Predicting Human Drug-Hormone Receptor Interactions with Structure-Aware Validation.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same journal

Intricate Role of Cholesterol in Membrane Fusion.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
Same journal

tmGNN-XAI: An Explainable Graph Neural Network Tool for Predicting Electronic Properties of Transition Metal Complexes from SMILES.

Journal of chemical information and modeling·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
10:29

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

Published on: May 9, 2025

1.0K

Benchmarking Active Learning Protocols for Ligand-Binding Affinity Prediction.

Rohan Gorantla1,2,3, Alžbeta Kubincová3, Benjamin Suutari3

  • 1School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh EH8 9AB, U.K.

Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
|March 6, 2024
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Active learning (AL) optimizes drug discovery by systematically evaluating machine learning models and parameters. The Gaussian process model excels with sparse data, while larger initial batch sizes improve top binder identification.

More Related Videos

Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA
10:21

Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA

Published on: February 23, 2024

2.5K
Protein WISDOM: A Workbench for In silico De novo Design of BioMolecules
10:58

Protein WISDOM: A Workbench for In silico De novo Design of BioMolecules

Published on: July 25, 2013

17.1K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jul 1, 2025

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors
10:29

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship, Activity Prediction, and Molecular Dynamics of Non-nucleotide Reverse Transcriptase Inhibitors

Published on: May 9, 2025

1.0K
Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA
10:21

Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA

Published on: February 23, 2024

2.5K
Protein WISDOM: A Workbench for In silico De novo Design of BioMolecules
10:58

Protein WISDOM: A Workbench for In silico De novo Design of BioMolecules

Published on: July 25, 2013

17.1K

Area of Science:

  • Computational chemistry
  • Cheminformatics
  • Machine learning in drug discovery

Background:

  • Active learning (AL) is crucial for identifying potent drug candidates from large molecular libraries.
  • Understanding AL parameter influence is key to designing effective drug discovery protocols.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically evaluate machine learning models, sample selection, and batch sizes in active learning for drug discovery.
  • To assess the impact of data set characteristics and noise on AL performance.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized four affinity datasets (TYK2, USP7, D2R, Mpro) to test Gaussian process (GP) and Chemprop models.
  • Evaluated performance using metrics like R2, Spearman rank, RMSE, Recall, and F1 score.
  • Assessed the effect of initial and subsequent batch sizes and artificial data noise.

Main Results:

  • GP model outperformed Chemprop on sparse datasets; performance was comparable on larger datasets.
  • Larger initial batch sizes improved top binder identification (Recall) and overall correlation.
  • Smaller batch sizes (20-30 compounds) were optimal for subsequent AL cycles.
  • Moderate artificial noise did not hinder, but excessive noise negatively impacted, performance.

Conclusions:

  • The choice of AL model and parameters significantly impacts drug discovery outcomes.
  • Optimizing batch size and considering data sparsity are critical for robust active learning protocols.
  • AL remains effective even with moderate data noise, but excessive noise compromises its utility.