You are provided with the abstract of a scientific paper and the abstracts of the papers it references. Your task is to write a Related Work section for the main paper. This section should concisely summarize and integrate the key points from the cited abstracts, reflecting how they relate to the main paper's contributions and context. In your summary, use numerical citation markers like [1], [2], etc., to refer to the corresponding papers.

Main Abstract:
We devise an approach for targeted molecular design, a problem of interest in computational drug discovery: given a target protein site, we wish to generate a chemical with both high binding affinity to the target and satisfactory pharmacological properties. This problem is made difficult by the enormity and discreteness of the space of potential therapeutics, as well as the graph-structured nature of biomolecular surface sites. Using a dataset of protein-ligand complexes, we surmount these issues by extracting a signature of the target site with a graph convolutional network and by encoding the discrete chemical into a continuous latent vector space. The latter embedding permits gradient-based optimization in molecular space, which we perform using learned differentiable models of binding affinity and other pharmacological properties. We show that our approach is able to efficiently optimize these multiple objectives and discover new molecules with potentially useful binding properties, validated via docking methods.

Cited Abstract(s):
[1]: Computational approaches to drug discovery can reduce the time and cost associated with experimental assays and enable the screening of novel chemotypes. Structure-based drug design methods rely on scoring functions to rank and predict binding affinities and poses. The ever-expanding amount of protein–ligand binding and structural data enables the use of deep machine learning techniques for protein–ligand scoring. We describe convolutional neural network (CNN) scoring functions that take as input a comprehensive three-dimensional (3D) representation of a protein–ligand interaction. A CNN scoring function automatically learns the key features of protein–ligand interactions that correlate with binding. We train and optimize our CNN scoring functions to discriminate between correct and incorrect binding poses and known binders and nonbinders. We find that our CNN scoring function outperforms the AutoDock Vina scoring function when ranking poses both for pose prediction and virtual screening.

[2]: Deep convolutional neural networks comprise a subclass of deep neural networks (DNN) with a constrained architecture that leverages the spatial and temporal structure of the domain they model. Convolutional networks achieve the best predictive performance in areas such as speech and image recognition by hierarchically composing simple local features into complex models. Although DNNs have been used in drug discovery for QSAR and ligand-based bioactivity predictions, none of these models have benefited from this powerful convolutional architecture. This paper introduces AtomNet, the first structure-based, deep convolutional neural network designed to predict the bioactivity of small molecules for drug discovery applications. We demonstrate how to apply the convolutional concepts of feature locality and hierarchical composition to the modeling of bioactivity and chemical interactions. In further contrast to existing DNN techniques, we show that AtomNet’s application of local convolutional filters to structural target information successfully predicts new active molecules for targets with no previously known modulators. Finally, we show that AtomNet outperforms previous docking approaches on a diverse set of benchmarks by a large margin, achieving an AUC greater than 0.9 on 57.8 of the targets in the DUDE benchmark.
Separately, methods of predicting affinity from structural information have also been recently developed [1] [2] . Such networks take a PLC as input, and use the structural information from the complex to score the affinity of the bound pair. The main difference between our method and these approaches is that our affinity prediction network does not receive structural information on the interaction; i.e. the protein site and putative binding chemical are received independently, as embedded vectors. This makes the estimation problem more difficult, since detailed atomic interaction information is not available to the predictor, but more general, since it can be applied to any protein site-chemical pair. This allows us to avoid a docking step (i.e. to generate a PLC) during our optimization.