Automated design of multi-target ligands by generative deep learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Generative deep learning models enable data-driven de novo design of molecules with tailored features. Chemical language models (CLM) trained on string representations of molecules such as SMILES have been successfully employed to design new chemical entities with experimentally confirmed activity on intended targets. Here, we probe the application of CLM to generate multi-target ligands for designed polypharmacology. We capitalize on the ability of CLM to learn from small fine-tuning sets of molecules and successfully bias the model towards designing drug-like molecules with similarity to known ligands of target pairs of interest. Designs obtained from CLM after pooled fine-tuning are predicted active on both proteins of interest and comprise pharmacophore elements of ligands for both targets in one molecule. Synthesis and testing of twelve computationally favored CLM designs for six target pairs reveals modulation of at least one intended protein by all selected designs with up to double-digit nanomolar potency and confirms seven compounds as designed dual ligands. These results corroborate CLM for multi-target de novo design as source of innovation in drug discovery.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".