skip to main content
10.1145/3107411.3107451acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesbcbConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

DeepCCI: End-to-end Deep Learning for Chemical-Chemical Interaction Prediction

Published:20 August 2017Publication History

ABSTRACT

Chemical-chemical interaction (CCI) plays a key role in predicting candidate drugs, toxicity, therapeutic effects, and biological functions. In various types of chemical analyses, computational approaches are often required due to the amount of data that needs to be handled. The recent remarkable growth and outstanding performance of deep learning have attracted considerable research attention. However, even in state-of-the-art drug analysis methods, deep learning continues to be used only as a classifier, although deep learning is capable of not only simple classification but also automated feature extraction. In this paper, we propose the first end- to-end learning method for CCI, named DeepCCI. Hidden features are derived from a simplified molecular input line entry system (SMILES), which is a string notation representing the chemical structure, instead of learning from crafted features. To discover hidden representations for the SMILES strings, we use convolutional neural networks (CNNs). To guarantee the commutative property for homogeneous interaction, we apply model sharing and hidden representation merging techniques. The performance of DeepCCI was compared with a plain deep classifier and conventional machine learning methods. The proposed DeepCCI showed the best performance in all seven evaluation metrics used. In addition, the commutative property was experimentally validated. The automatically extracted features through end-to-end SMILES learning alleviates the significant efforts required for manual feature engineering. It is expected to improve prediction performance in drug analyses.

References

  1. Babak Alipanahi, Andrew Delong, Matthew T Weirauch, and Brendan J Frey 2015. Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA-and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning. Nature biotechnology, Vol. 33, 8 (2015), 831--838.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Christof Angermueller, Tanel Parnamaa, Leopold Parts, and Oliver Stegle 2016. Deep learning for computational biology. Molecular systems biology Vol. 12, 7 (2016), 878.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Dzmitry Bahdanau, Kyunghyun Cho, and Yoshua Bengio. 2014. Neural machine translation by jointly learning to align and translate. arXiv preprint arXiv:1409.0473 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Petko Bogdanov and Ambuj K Singh 2010. Molecular function prediction using neighborhood features. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics (TCBB), Vol. 7, 2 (2010), 208--217. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Leo Breiman. 2001. Random forests. Machine learning, Vol. 45, 1 (2001), 5--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Lei Chen, Tao Huang, Jian Zhang, Ming-Yue Zheng, Kai-Yan Feng, Yu-Dong Cai, and Kuo-Chen Chou 2013. Predicting drugs side effects based on chemical-chemical interactions and protein-chemical interactions. BioMed research international Vol. 2013 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Lei Chen, Jing Lu, Jian Zhang, Kai-Rui Feng, Ming-Yue Zheng, and Yu-Dong Cai. 2013. Predicting chemical toxicity effects based on chemical-chemical interactions. PLoS One, Vol. 8, 2 (2013), e56517.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Lei Chen, Jing Yang, Mingyue Zheng, Xiangyin Kong, Tao Huang, and Yu-Dong Cai. 2015. The use of chemical-chemical interaction and chemical structure to identify new candidate chemicals related to lung cancer. PloS one, Vol. 10, 6 (2015), e0128696.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. François Chollet. 2015. Keras: Deep Learning library for Theano and TensorFlow. https://github.com/fchollet/keras. (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Ryszard Czermi'nski, Abdelaziz Yasri, and David Hartsough. 2001. Use of support vector machine in pattern classification: Application to QSAR studies. Molecular Informatics Vol. 20, 3 (2001), 227--240.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. George E Dahl, Navdeep Jaitly, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov. 2014. Multi-task neural networks for QSAR predictions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1406.1231 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Li Deng and Roberto Togneri 2015. Deep dynamic models for learning hidden representations of speech features. Speech and Audio Processing for Coding, Enhancement and Recognition. Springer, 153--195.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Jean-Pierre Doucet, Florent Barbault, Hairong Xia, Annick Panaye, and Botao Fan. 2007. Nonlinear SVM approaches to QSPR/QSAR studies and drug design. Current Computer-Aided Drug Design Vol. 3, 4 (2007), 263--289.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Jesse Eickholt and Jianlin Cheng 2013. DNdisorder: predicting protein disorder using boosting and deep networks. BMC bioinformatics, Vol. 14, 1 (2013), 88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andrea Franceschini, Damian Szklarczyk, Sune Frankild, Michael Kuhn, Milan Simonovic, Alexander Roth, Jianyi Lin, Pablo Minguez, Peer Bork, Christian Von Mering, and others. 2013. STRING v9. 1: protein-protein interaction networks, with increased coverage and integration. Nucleic acids research Vol. 41, D1 (2013), D808--D815.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Yoav Freund and Robert E Schapire 1995. A desicion-theoretic generalization of on-line learning and an application to boosting European conference on computational learning theory. Springer, 23--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Rafael Gómez-Bombarelli, David Duvenaud, José Miguel Hernández-Lobato, Jorge Aguilera-Iparraguirre, Timothy D Hirzel, Ryan P Adams, and Alán Aspuru-Guzik 2016. Automatic chemical design using a data-driven continuous representation of molecules. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02415 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Alex Graves, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, and Geoffrey Hinton. 2013. Speech recognition with deep recurrent neural networks Acoustics, speech and signal processing (icassp), 2013 ieee international conference on. IEEE, 6645--6649.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Stephen Heller, Alan McNaught, Stephen Stein, Dmitrii Tchekhovskoi, and Igor Pletnev. 2013. InChI-the worldwide chemical structure identifier standard. Journal of cheminformatics Vol. 5, 1 (2013), 7.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Geoffrey Hinton, Li Deng, Dong Yu, George E Dahl, Abdel-rahman Mohamed, Navdeep Jaitly, Andrew Senior, Vincent Vanhoucke, Patrick Nguyen, Tara N Sainath, and others 2012. Deep neural networks for acoustic modeling in speech recognition: The shared views of four research groups. IEEE Signal Processing Magazine Vol. 29, 6 (2012), 82--97.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Sepp Hochreiter and Jürgen Schmidhuber 1997. Long short-term memory. Neural computation, Vol. 9, 8 (1997), 1735--1780. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Le-Le Hu, Chen Chen, Tao Huang, Yu-Dong Cai, and Kuo-Chen Chou 2011. Predicting biological functions of compounds based on chemical-chemical interactions. PLoS One, Vol. 6, 12 (2011), e29491.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Sergey Ioffe and Christian Szegedy 2015. Batch normalization: Accelerating deep network training by reducing internal covariate shift. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.03167 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Hawoong Jeong, Sean P Mason, A-L Barabási, and Zoltan N Oltvai 2001. Lethality and centrality in protein networks. Nature, Vol. 411, 6833 (2001), 41--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Nal Kalchbrenner, Edward Grefenstette, and Phil Blunsom. 2014. A convolutional neural network for modelling sentences. arXiv preprint arXiv:1404.2188 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Yoon Kim 2014. Convolutional neural networks for sentence classification. arXiv preprint arXiv:1408.5882 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. T Kindt, S Morse, E Gotschlich, and K Lyons. 1991. Structure-based strategies for drug design and discovery. Nature Vol. 352 (1991), 581.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Diederik Kingma and Jimmy Ba 2014. Adam: A method for stochastic optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6980 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Diederik P Kingma and Max Welling 2013. Auto-encoding variational bayes. arXiv preprint arXiv:1312.6114 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Geoffrey E Hinton. 2012. Imagenet classification with deep convolutional neural networks Advances in neural information processing systems. 1097--1105. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Michael Kuhn, Christian von Mering, Monica Campillos, Lars Juhl Jensen, and Peer Bork 2008. STITCH: interaction networks of chemicals and proteins. Nucleic acids research Vol. 36, suppl 1 (2008), D684--D688.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Steve Lawrence, C Lee Giles, Ah Chung Tsoi, and Andrew D Back 1997. Face recognition: A convolutional neural-network approach. IEEE transactions on neural networks Vol. 8, 1 (1997), 98--113. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Byunghan Lee, Junghwan Baek, Seunghyun Park, and Sungroh Yoon 2016. deepTarget: end-to-end learning framework for microRNA target prediction using deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1603.09123 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Byunghan Lee, Taehoon Lee, Byunggook Na, and Sungroh Yoon. 2015. DNA-level splice junction prediction using deep recurrent neural networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1512.05135 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. Taehoon Lee and Sungroh Yoon 2015. Boosted Categorical Restricted Boltzmann Machine for Computational Prediction of Splice Junctions.. In ICML. 2483--2492. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Michael KK Leung, Hui Yuan Xiong, Leo J Lee, and Brendan J Frey. 2014. Deep learning of the tissue-regulated splicing code. Bioinformatics, Vol. 30, 12 (2014), i121--i129.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Zachary C Lipton, John Berkowitz, and Charles Elkan. 2015. A critical review of recurrent neural networks for sequence learning. arXiv preprint arXiv:1506.00019 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Alessandro Lusci, Gianluca Pollastri, and Pierre Baldi. 2013. Deep architectures and deep learning in chemoinformatics: the prediction of aqueous solubility for drug-like molecules. Journal of chemical information and modeling, Vol. 53, 7 (2013), 1563.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. Seonwoo Min, Byunghan Lee, and Sungroh Yoon 2016. Deep learning in bioinformatics. Briefings in Bioinformatics (2016), bbw068.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  40. Vinod Nair and Geoffrey E Hinton 2010. Rectified linear units improve restricted boltzmann machines Proceedings of the 27th international conference on machine learning (ICML-10). 807--814. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Ka-Lok Ng, Jin-Shuei Ciou, and Chien-Hung Huang. 2010. Prediction of protein functions based on function--function correlation relations. Computers in Biology and Medicine Vol. 40, 3 (2010), 300--305. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Maxime Oquab, Leon Bottou, Ivan Laptev, and Josef Sivic. 2014. Learning and transferring mid-level image representations using convolutional neural networks. In Proceedings of the IEEE conference on computer vision and pattern recognition. 1717--1724. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Hakime Öztürk, Elif Ozkirimli, and Arzucan Özgür 2016. A comparative study of SMILES-based compound similarity functions for drug-target interaction prediction. BMC bioinformatics, Vol. 17, 1 (2016), 128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Seunghyun Park, Seonwoo Min, Hyunsoo Choi, and Sungroh Yoon. 2016. deepMiRGene: deep neural network based precursor microRNA prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.00017 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Bharath Ramsundar, Steven Kearnes, Patrick Riley, Dale Webster, David Konerding, and Vijay Pande. 2015. Massively multitask networks for drug discovery. arXiv preprint arXiv:1502.02072 (2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  46. Ambrish Roy, Alper Kucukural, and Yang Zhang. 2010. I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction. Nature protocols, Vol. 5, 4 (2010), 725--738.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  47. Jean-Franccois Rual, Kavitha Venkatesan, Tong Hao, Tomoko Hirozane-Kishikawa, Amélie Dricot, Ning Li, Gabriel F Berriz, Francis D Gibbons, Matija Dreze, Nono Ayivi-Guedehoussou, and others. 2005. Towards a proteome-scale map of the human protein--protein interaction network. Nature, Vol. 437, 7062 (2005), 1173--1178.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Leander Schietgat, Bertrand Cuissart, Alban Lepailleur, Kurt De Grave, Bruno Crémilleux, Ronan Bureau, and Jan Ramon. 2013. Comparing chemical fingerprints for ecotoxicology. 6èmes journées de la Société Franccaise de Chémoinformatique.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  49. Marwin HS Segler, Thierry Kogej, Christian Tyrchan, and Mark P Waller 2017. Generating Focussed Molecule Libraries for Drug Discovery with Recurrent Neural Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1701.01329 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  50. Roded Sharan, Igor Ulitsky, and Ron Shamir. 2007. Network-based prediction of protein function. Molecular systems biology Vol. 3, 1 (2007), 88.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  51. Xingjian Shi, Hao Wang, and Dit Yan Yeung 2016. Collaborative Recurrent Autoencoder: Recommend while Learning to Fill in the Blanks. (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  52. Nitish Srivastava, Geoffrey E Hinton, Alex Krizhevsky, Ilya Sutskever, and Ruslan Salakhutdinov 2014. Dropout: a simple way to prevent neural networks from overfitting. Journal of Machine Learning Research Vol. 15, 1 (2014), 1929--1958. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Andrew J Stuper, William E Brügger, and Peter C Jurs. 1979. Computer assisted studies of chemical structure and biological function. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  54. Ilya Sutskever, Oriol Vinyals, and Quoc V Le. 2014. Sequence to sequence learning with neural networks Advances in neural information processing systems. 3104--3112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Vladimir Svetnik, Andy Liaw, Christopher Tong, J Christopher Culberson, Robert P Sheridan, and Bradley P Feuston 2003. Random forest: a classification and regression tool for compound classification and QSAR modeling. Journal of chemical information and computer sciences, Vol. 43, 6 (2003), 1947--1958.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  56. Matt Swain. 2014. PubChemPy: a way to interact with PubChem in Python. http://pubchempy.readthedocs.io. (2014).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  57. Mahmud Tareq Hassan Khan. 2010. Predictions of the ADMET properties of candidate drug molecules utilizing different QSAR/QSPR modelling approaches. Current Drug Metabolism Vol. 11, 4 (2010), 285--295.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  58. Kai Tian, Mingyu Shao, Yang Wang, Jihong Guan, and Shuigeng Zhou 2016. Boosting compound-protein interaction prediction by deep learning. Methods Vol. 110 (2016), 64--72.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  59. Roberto Todeschini and Viviana Consonni 2009. Molecular descriptors for chemoinformatics, volume 41 (2 volume set). Vol. Vol. 41. John Wiley & Sons.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  60. Han Van De Waterbeemd and Eric Gifford 2003. ADMET in silico modelling: towards prediction paradise? Nature reviews Drug discovery Vol. 2, 3 (2003), 192--204.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  61. Vladimir Vapnik. 2013. The nature of statistical learning theory. Springer science & business media.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  62. Vladimir Naumovich Vapnik and Vlamimir Vapnik 1998. Statistical learning theory. Vol. Vol. 1. Wiley New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  63. Qin Wang, Xiao Li, Hongbin Yang, Yingchun Cai, Yinyin Wang, Zhuang Wang, Weihua Li, Yun Tang, and Guixia Liu 2017. In silico prediction of serious eye irritation or corrosion potential of chemicals. RSC Advances, Vol. 7, 11 (2017), 6697--6703.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  64. Yanli Wang, Jewen Xiao, Tugba O Suzek, Jian Zhang, Jiyao Wang, and Stephen H Bryant. 2009. PubChem: a public information system for analyzing bioactivities of small molecules. Nucleic acids research Vol. 37, suppl 2 (2009), W623--W633.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  65. David Weininger. 1970. SMILES, a chemical language and information system. 1. Introduction to methodology and encoding rules. In Proc. Edinburgh Math. SOC, Vol. Vol. 17. 1--14.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  66. Jan Wildenhain, Michaela Spitzer, Sonam Dolma, Nick Jarvik, Rachel White, Marcia Roy, Emma Griffiths, David S Bellows, Gerard D Wright, and Mike Tyers. 2016. Systematic chemical-genetic and chemical-chemical interaction datasets for prediction of compound synergism. Scientific Data Vol. 3 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  67. Matthew D Zeiler and Rob Fergus 2014. Visualizing and understanding convolutional networks European conference on computer vision. Springer, 818--833.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  68. Haoyang Zeng, Matthew D Edwards, Ge Liu, and David K Gifford. 2016. Convolutional neural network architectures for predicting DNA--protein binding. Bioinformatics, Vol. 32, 12 (2016), i121--i127.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. DeepCCI: End-to-end Deep Learning for Chemical-Chemical Interaction Prediction

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          ACM-BCB '17: Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Conference on Bioinformatics, Computational Biology,and Health Informatics
          August 2017
          800 pages
          ISBN:9781450347228
          DOI:10.1145/3107411

          Copyright © 2017 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 20 August 2017

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ACM-BCB '17 Paper Acceptance Rate42of132submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate254of885submissions,29%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader