SearcharxivSearch

arXiv subjects

Yize Hao

Publications and source records attributed to Yize Hao.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

TRIDS: AI-native molecular docking framework for accelerating high-throughput virtual screening with physically valid binding poses

Molecular docking is a cornerstone of drug discovery for unveiling the mechanism of ligand-receptor interactions. With the recent advances of deep learning (DL), AI-powered molecular docking methods have achieved higher accuracy for binding pose prediction and virtual screening compared with classical physics-based methods. However, there is still a scarcity of approaches to strike a balance among accuracy, computational efficiency, and rigorous physical validity of the output conformations. In the previous two versions of DSDP, we demonstrated the effectiveness of guiding conformation sampling with the gradient of an analytic scoring function. As the third version, TRIDS was devised as an AI-native docking framework that expand the similar strategy to unify conformation sampling and docking processes with DL-based model for improving accuracy of docking and screening. Furthermore, it is tailored for seamless cooperation of AI and physics to guarantee the physical validity of predicted binding poses. Being user-friendly, TRIDS predicts the binding site, parses multiple file formats, and supports Python programming and PyMOL graphical interaction. It improves docking accuracy and passes physical validation with high computational efficiency, i.e. a single docking task is done in a fraction of second while maintaining a highly lightweight GPU memory footprint of merely hundreds of megabytes, facilitating high-throughput virtual screening in reality. As a proof of concept, TRIDS allowed us to obtain hit compounds with novel scaffolds for tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF{\alpha}) inhibitor through a large-scale virtual screening.

physics.chem-ph

Poisson Approximate Likelihood versus the block particle filter for a spatiotemporal measles model

Filtering algorithms for high-dimensional nonlinear non-Gaussian partially observed stochastic processes provide access to the likelihood function and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference for this methodologically challenging class of models. A novel Poisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al.\ (2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering a fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of partially observed Markov process models. PAL was demonstrated on an epidemiological metapopulation model for measles, specifically, a spatiotemporal model for disease transmission within and between cities. At face value, Table\ 3 of Whitehouse et al.\ (2023) suggests that PAL considerably out-performs previous analysis as well as an ARMA benchmark model. We show that PAL does not outperform a block particle filter and that the lookahead component of PAL was implemented in a way that introduces substantial positive bias in the log-likelihood estimates. Therefore, the results of Table\ 3 of Whitehouse et al.\ (2023) do not accurately represent the true capabilities of PAL.

stat.ME

Poisson approximate likelihood compared to the particle filter

Filtering algorithms are fundamental for inference on partially observed stochastic dynamic systems, since they provide access to the likelihood function and hence enable likelihood-based or Bayesian inference. A novel Poisson approximate likelihood (PAL) filter was introduced by Whitehouse et al. (2023). PAL employs a Poisson approximation to conditional densities, offering a fast approximation to the likelihood function for a certain subset of partially observed Markov process models. A central piece of evidence for PAL is the comparison in Table 1 of Whitehouse et al. (2023), which claims a large improvement for PAL over a standard particle filter algorithm. This evidence, based on a model and data from a previous scientific study by Stocks et al. (2020), might suggest that researchers confronted with similar models should use PAL rather than particle filter methods. Taken at face value, this evidence also reduces the credibility of Stocks et al. (2020) by indicating a shortcoming with the numerical methods that they used. However, we show that the comparison of log-likelihood values made by Whitehouse et al. (2023) is flawed because their PAL calculations were carried out using a dataset scaled differently from the previous study. If PAL and the particle filter are applied to the same data, the advantage claimed for PAL disappears. On simulations where the model is correctly specified, the particle filter outperforms PAL.

stat.ME