 Research
 Open access
 Published:
CurvAGN: Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Predicting ProteinLigand Binding Affinity
BMC Bioinformatics volume 24, Article number: 378 (2023)
Abstract
Accurately predicting the binding affinity between proteins and ligands is crucial for drug discovery. Recent advances in graph neural networks (GNNs) have made significant progress in learning representations of proteinligand complexes to estimate binding affinities. To improve the performance of GNNs, there frequently needs to look into proteinligand complexes from geometric perspectives. While the “offtheshelf” GNNs could incorporate some basic geometric structures of molecules, such as distances and angles, through modeling the complexes as homophilic graphs, these solutions seldom take into account the higherlevel geometric attributes like curvatures and homology, and also heterophilic interactions.To address these limitations, we introduce the Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Network (CurvAGN). This GNN comprises two components: a curvature block and an adaptive attention guided neural block (AGN). The curvature block encodes multiscale curvature informaton, then the AGN, based on an adaptive graph attention mechanism, incorporates geometry structure including angle, distance, and multiscale curvature, longrange molecular interactions, and heterophily of the graph into the proteinligand complex representation. We demonstrate the superiority of our proposed model through experiments conducted on the PDBbindV2016 core dataset.
Introduction
Proteinligand binding affinity prediction is a critical step in drug discovery [1]. It allows researchers to identify potential drug candidates and optimize their properties before conducting expensive and timeconsuming experiments. The increasing availability of threedimensional (3D) structural protein data provides a new paradigm for structurebased drug discovery and 3D structural information has been proven to facilitate drug design [2]. Various computational methods have been developed to learn 3D structure information from a proteinligand complex. These methods range from molecular docking [3,4,5,6] to more sophisticated machine learning [1, 7, 8] and deep learning approaches [9].
Docking methods have been widely adopted with a scoring function for binding affinity prediction, but their accuracy also limits the potential applications of docking methods [3, 4]. Traditional machine learning algorithms [7, 8] together with handcrafted features could sometimes deliver decent performance, but they are difficult to scale up due to cost of extensive feature engineering. To model 3D spatial structure, many deep learning approaches [10,11,12] divide the complex into 3D grid data and apply 3D convolutional neural works(3D CNNs) to extract useful features. These approaches have demonstrated better performance in predicting binding affinity than traditional machine learningbased models. However, the sparsity distribution of atoms in the complex can result in inefficient computations when using a 3D rectangular grid representation [13].
Modeling a proteinligand complex as a graph where nodes correspond to atoms is a natural and effective approach [14, 15]. Graph neural networks (GNNs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in expressing graph structures, and researchers have made considerable efforts to incorporate spatial information to enhance its expression ability. Spatial Graph Convolutional Networks [16, 17] utilize 3D coordinates to model the structure of complexes. However, the output of coordinatebased models can be negatively impacted by rotations of the coordinates. This limitation is addressed by distanceaware GNNs [13, 18], which only take distance into account. But these models may not suffice to accurately model 3D structures for binding affinity predictions. Directional message passingbased GNNs [2, 19] have been proposed to address this limitation. These models incorporate angle and distance information, which has been shown to be crucial in empirical potentials for molecules [20]. While these models offer improved prediction performance, their accuracy have a great potential to be further improved. Since the proteinligand binding affinity is determined by its absolute binding free energy [21], which is primarily specified by curvature [22], incorporating curvature information into the graph representation is necessary to enhance prediction accuracy.The concept of curvature is closely related to the geometry of a manifold, and some efforts have been made to generalize curvatures for a graph [23, 24]. Based on this generalization, two different curvaturebased graph neural networks [25, 26] have been proposed, and they perform well on baseline datasets. Biomolecules often exhibit hierarchical and multiscale structures, which require a multiscale representation to accurately characterize their interactions [27]. It implies multiscale curvature for graph is more suitable. However, incorporating multiscale curvature into GNNs for predicting binding affinity remains an open research question.
Moreover, many studies have recognized the heterogeneity of proteinligand complex graphs and endeavored to incorporate this heterogeneity into their graph neural networks [2, 28, 29]. Nevertheless, it is often disregarded that the graph is not strictly homophilic, as neighboring nodes may not be similar. Graph neural networks based on the homophily assumption cannot effectively learn heterophily, which is the property where linked nodes have dissimilar features [30, 31]. Therefore, previous studies on binding affinity have failed to capture heterophily.
To address above challenges, we propose a novel Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Network (CurvAGN) for predicting proteinligand binding affinity. The CurvAGN comprises a curvature block and an adaptive attention guided neural block (AGN). The curvature block assigns edge attributes to include multiscale curvature, and AGN is inspired by SIGN [2] and consists of two parts. The first part, called the polarinspired adaptive graph attention block (PAGA), uses an adaptive graph attention mechanism [32] to model the 3D spatial structure of the proteinligand complex by incorporating distance, angle, and curvature information. The adaptive attention mechanism addresses the heterophily in the proteinligand complex graph. The second part is the pooling block, which is described in [2] and includes the pairwise interactive pooling (PiPool) for leveraging longrange interactions and the output pooling layer for predicting the proteinligand binding affinity.
Our work makes three main contributions:

We propose the curvature block that utilizes multiscale curvature to encode edge attributes of biomolecule graphs, effectively capturing the multiscale structure of these biomolecules.

We find the distancebased complex interaction graph is a heterophilic graph, and further propose the adaptive attention guided neural model (AGN) to capture the heterophily and geometric structure of angles and distances, and and longrange molecular interactions.

We combine the curvaturebased graph neural network and AGN to propose the Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Network (CurvAGN).

We apply CurcAGN to predicting the proteinligand binding affinity. We train and validate our model on the publicly available standard PDBbindv2016 dataset, and show that it outperforms SIGN [2] by 7.5% in RMSE and 9.4% in MAE.
Related work
3D structure GNNs for binding affinity prediction
3D structural GNNs have been used to integrate the 3D structure of proteinligand complexes into highlevel representations, thereby improving the accuracy of binding affinity prediction. Atom coordinatebased GNNs [17] use atomic coordinates directly as node attributes, but they often fail to recognize the same proteinligand complex due to coordinate variations in different coordinate systems. Distancebased GNNs [13, 33,34,35] overcome this deficiency by utilizing atomic distances. Angle and distancebased GNNs [2, 19] can enrich geometric information and enhance complex modeling capabilities.
Ricci curvature for graphs
Ricci curvature is a geometric object that measures the curvature of a Riemannian manifold [36, 37]. Intuitively, if the Ricci curvature is positive, the manifold curves more like a sphere, while negative Ricci curvature results in a more saddlelike curve. In recent years, there has been growing interest in the study of graph curvature, which is a discrete analogue of Ricci curvature. There are two main types of graph curvature: Ollivier Ricci curvature (ORC) and Forman Ricci curvature (FRC). ORC is based on optimal transport theory and captures the geometric properties of a graph [23, 38,39,40,41,42,43], while FRC is based on the graph Laplacian and captures the algebraic topological properties of a graph [24, 44]. In general, ORC is a more recent and sophisticated measure of curvature than FRC. However, FRC is more widely used because it is easier to compute.
Persistent graphcurvaturedescriptors
Xia et al. propose a persistent graph curvature descriptor to characterize molecular features based on the observation that biomolecules have a hierarchical and multiscale structure [27, 43]. They first filter the edges of the graph by length to remove short edges that are less relevant to the hierarchical structure, and then construct a sequence of subgraphs, where each subgraph is a subset of the next one. They then define a permutationinvariant descriptor function for each subgraph that is related to curvature. This function is designed to be invariant to the order in which the nodes are arranged, so that it can be used to characterize the molecular features of the graph regardless of how the graph is represented. Finally, they arrange the descriptors of each subgraph in sequence, to form the persistent graph curvature descriptor.
Heterophilybased GNNs
Heterophilic graphs refer to graphs where linked nodes exhibit heterophily, meaning that they have dissimilar features and different class labels [29]. Many realworld graphs, such as transaction networks [45], exhibit heterophily. Recent studies have shown that GNNs do not perform well on heterophilic graphs [46,47,48,49]. This is because GNNs are typically designed to learn from homophilic graphs, where linked nodes have similar features and class labels. To address this issue, several GNN designs have been proposed that are specifically tailored for heterophilic graphs. These designs include MixHop [50], MMDAN [51], BeyondGNN [32], AdaGNN [52], BeyondGCN [53], and GeomGCN [54].
Persistent curvature descriptors have been shown to be effective in representing proteinligand complexes, but they rely on prior knowledge. To overcome this limitation, we developed a multiscale curvature graph neural network that incorporates the multiscale curvature of edges as edge attributes. In addition to the curvature information, the interactions between molecules play a critical role in binding affinity. When modeling a proteinligand complex as a graph, protein atoms and ligand atoms are connected based on distance, but short distance does not necessarily mean similar features. This leads to the graph not having strict homophily. To capture this important feature, it is natural to utilize heterophilybased models. However, to the best of our knowledge, no heterophilybased GNNs have been used for modeling this complex yet. Therefore, we propose incorporating the adaptive graph attention mechanism [32] into our network.
Preliminaries
In this section, we introduce some key definitions that will be used in our model and formulas..
Definition 1
(Complex Interaction Graph [2, 35]) For an proteinligand complex, let \({\mathcal {V}}^{\text {L}}:=\{a_1^{L},a_2^{L}, \ldots , a_n^{L} \}\) be the ligand atom set, \({\mathcal {V}}^{\text {P}}:=\{a_1^{P},a_2^{P}, \ldots , a_m^{P} \}\) be the protein atom set. We define the complex interaction graph as a direction graph \({\mathcal {G}}_I:=({\mathcal {V}},{\mathcal {E}})\), where the node set is
and the edge set is
Here \(c(\cdot )\) sents each atom to is 3D coordinate, \(\Vert \cdot \Vert\) is an Euclidean distance, and d is a cutoff distance.
Definition 2
(Edgeoriented Neighbors [2]) In the complex interaction graph \({\mathcal {G}}_I\), for an atom node \(a_i\) or a directed edge \(e_{ij}\) (i.e., \(a_i \rightarrow a_j\)), the edgeoriented neighbors \(\text {N}_e\) of \(a_i\) or \(e_{ij}\) are defined as the sets of directed edges \(\{e_{ki}, \ldots , e_{li}\}\) which point to the target atom \(a_i\) or the target edge \(e_{ij}\).
Definition 3
(Ollivier Ricci Curvature [42]) For a graph \({\mathcal {G}}:=(\text {V}, \text {E})\), given a \(\alpha \in [0,1]\), \(\alpha\)Riccicurvature \(k_{\alpha }\) of nodes \(a_i\) and \(a_j\) is defined to be
where \(d(a_i,a_j)\) is the graph distance between two vertices \(a_i\) and \(a_j\), \(m_a^{\alpha }\) is a probability measure defined as
and \(\text {W}(\cdot ,\cdot )\) is the transportation distance between two probability distributions \(m_1\) and \(m_2\), is defined by
Here \(\text {deg}(\cdot )\) sents each node to its degree, \(\text {N}(a)\) is the neighbors of node a, and the map \(\text {A}: \text {V} \times \text {V} \rightarrow [0,1]\) is a coupling between \(m_1\) and \(m_2\) such that
Definition 4
(Foramn Ricci Curvature [24]) When a graph \({\mathcal {G}}:=(\text {V}, \text {E})\) is composed of nodes, edges and triangles, otherwise, FormanRiccicurvature F of an edge \((a_1,a_2) \in \text {E}\) is defined to be
otherwise, it defined to be
where \(\Delta _{a_1a_2}\) is the number of triangular containing the edge \((a_1,a_2)\).
Curvaturebased adaptive graph neural networks
In this section, we present our model, called CurvAGN (Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Network). We begin by giving an overview of the framework, followed by a detail description of each component.
Overview
The overall framework of CurvAGN is shown in Fig. 1. It takes a complex interaction graph \({\mathcal {G}}_I\) as input and is made up of three blocks: a curvature block, a PAGA block, and a pooling block. The first two blocks, namely the curvature and PAGA block, use a 3D model to capture the geometric structure of the proteinligand complex interaction graph. Specifically, the curvature block captures the multiscale curvature information of the graph, while PAGA learns the spatial distance and angle information. The pooling block then gets the prediction of the binding affinity and the cooccurrent frequency of atom pairs, such as the CarbonCarbon cooccurrence frequency.
The PAGA block is composed of multiple PAGA layers, where each layer has a node2edge layer, an edge2edge layer, and an edge2node layer. The node2edge layer utilizes the graph attention mechanism (GAT) to fuse the attribute information of the nodes at both ends of an edge into the edge attributes. The edge2edge layer uses the adaptive GAT to convert the angle information and edge attributes obtained from the first layer into edge representations. Lastly, the edge2node layer employs the adaptive graph attention mechanism to learn the node representations.
The pooling block consists of an output pooling layer and a Pipooling layer. The former generates the binding affinity prediction, while the latter produces the cooccurrent frequency of atom pairs.
The curvature block
Ricci curvature measures the extent to which a smooth object deviates from being flat. Two different discrete forms of Ricci curvature, Ollivier and Forman, have been incorporated into graph neural networks [25, 26]. Biomolecules often have hierarchical and multiscale structures, requiring a multiscale Ricci curvature to accurately characterize these structures and interactions. Such curvature has been proposed in [27, 43]. However, their curvature descriptor for proteinligand complexes relies on prior knowledge such as the average and variance of all curvatures, and therefore, is not universally applicable. In contrast, we propose a multiscale curvature for each edge of the graph, making it a more versatile and flexible solution.
Let \(\text {dc}: {\mathcal {E}} \rightarrow {\mathbb {R}}\) be a discrete curvature function defined on the edge set \({\mathcal {E}}\) of a complex interaction graph, where \({\mathbb {R}}\) denotes the set of real numbers. The curvature of an edge \(e_{ij}\) of the graph is denoted by \(\text {dc}(e_{ij})\) or simply \(\text {dc}_{ij}\).
To define the multiscale curvature, we first select a sequence of filtration values \(\{l_i: l_0< l_1< \cdots < l_{n1} \}\), then for each \(l_k\), construct a subgraph \({\mathcal {G}}^{(k)}\) by removing edges with weight greater than \(l_k\) from the original graph and compute the curvature \(\text {dc}_{ij}^{(k)}\) of each edge \(e_{ij}\) in the subgraph.
The multiscale curvature \(\text {fc}_{ij}\) for an edge \(e_{ij}\) in the original graph is defined by concatenating the curvatures of the edge in subgraphs according to the order of the sequences, as follows:
where \(\Vert\) represents concatenation. If the edge \(e_{ij}\) is not in the subgraph \({\mathcal {G}}^{(k)}\), we set its curvature \(\text {dc}_{ij}\) as zero.
We then apply a dense layer to obtain a multiscale curvature embedding:
where \(\text {W}_f\) is a transformation matrix.
As described in [2], we set a onehot vector \(x_{ij}\) for the weight of edge \(e_{ij}\) by taking its integer part. Then the distance embedding for the edge is giving by
where \(\text {W}_{d} \in {\mathbb {R}}^{n_w \times m}\) is a transformation matrix, and \(n_w\) represents the dimension of the embedding.
Finally, we define the curvature block as follows:
where \(\text {W}_{fd}\) is a transformation matrix and \(d_{ij}\) is the distance embedding in Eq. 2.
The polarinspired adaptive graph attention block
PAGA is an adaptive graph attention network that models the 3D structure of the complex interaction graph. Compared to PGAL [2], which uses a polarinspired graph attention block, PAGA focuses on the adaptive graph attention mechanism and the varying dependency of different attributes of a node on a neighboring node. PAGA decomposes the layer into node2edge, edge2edge, and edge2node layers, which allows for a more granular understanding of the structural information.
The node2edge layer
The node2edge layer passes node information to its edges in order to get the edge representation. In the case of PAGA, we need to add angle information to the 3D model, which requires the transportation of node information to edges. This is done by defining the lth layer of the node2edge layer as follows:
here, \(\text {W}_{ab}^{(l)}\) is a transformation matrix and \(h_{a_i}^{l1}\) is the \((l1)\)layer node representation of the node \(a_i\).
The edge2edge layer
The edge2edge layer uses the adaptive graph attention mechanism to update the edge information based on the angles. To apply angle information, we construct a directed line graph and get subgraphs of the line graph by classifying the angles between edges in the original graph.
The directed line graph of the complex interaction graph is a dual graph where the nodes, node attributes, and edgeoriented neighbors of the nodes correspond respectively to the edges, the edge representations, and edgeoriented neighbors of the edges in the original graph. The weight of a directed edge between nodes in the dual is defined as the angle between the corresponding to edges in the complex interaction graph.
To get the subgraph of the line graph, we set N angle domains, denoted as \((\frac{180^{\circ }*(q1)}{N}, \frac{180^{\circ }*q}{N}]\), for \(q = 1,2,\ldots , N\). The qth subgraph is the subgraph of the line graph that retains all nodes but only edges of weights in the qth angle domain. We denote the neighbors of a node \(e_{ij}\) in the qth subgraph by \(\text {N}_e^{q}(e_{ij})\). The aggregation process for the qth local node representation is defined as follows:
where the operator \(\odot\) is the Hadamard product, \(\text {W}_{e,q}^{(l)}\) is a learnable transformation matrix, and \(b_{e,q}^{(l)}\) is a learnable vector. Equation 6 applies the adaptive graph attention mechanism to get an attention vector which is viewed as the concatenation of coefficients of attributes between nodes. And \(m_{ij,q}^{(l)}\) in Eq. 5 is the qth local node representation at the lth layer. To obtain the complete node representation, all the local aggregated node representations are combined:
For the dual, representation \(h^{(i)}_{e_{ij}}\) is also the edge representation in the complex interaction graph.
The edge2node layer
The node2edge layer incorporates angle information into the edge representation. To further inject the distance and multiscale curvature information into the node representation, we design the edge2node layer based on the adaptive attention mechanism. This is in contrast to the GATbased distanceaware attention mechanism in [2], which cannot capture heterophily.
Since the feature spaces of edges and nodes are different, we first use learnable parameter matrices \(\text {W}_e^{(l)}\) and \(\text {W}_a^{(l)}\) convert the representations of nodes and edges to the same space as follows:
Then we define the attention of \(e_{ij}\) with respect to \(a_j\) as
where \(v_l^T\) is a parameter vector at the lth layer, and \(\text {W}_{dr}^{(l)}\) is the learnable parameter matrix. Finally, we get the multihead attention version of our edge2node layer by aggregating over all edges \(e_{ij} \in \text {N}_e(a_j)\) as follows:
where C is the number of attention heads and \(\text {N}_e(a_j)\) is the edgeoriented neighbors of node \(a_j\).
Assuming PAGA has L polarinspired adaptive graph attention layers, it yields the node representation \(a_j^{(L)}\) for atom \(a_j\) and the edge representation \(e_{ij}^{(L)}\) between atoms \(a_i\) and \(a_j\).
The pooling block
As illustrated in [2], the pooling block is composed of a PiPooling layer and an output pooling layer. The PiPooling layer is designed to capture the longrange intermolecular interactions between the protein and ligand and output poling layer to predict the affinity.
The PiPooling layer
The PiPooling layer first divides the edges into \(\text {S}_{P} \times \text {S}_{L}\) components, where \(\text {S}_{P}\) and \(\text {S}_{L}\) be atomic type(number) sets of the protein and its ligand, respectively. For the \((T_k,T_l)\)component, the pooling of edge representations is defined as
where \(W_h\) is a shared parameter, \(T_k \in \text {S}_{P},T_l \in \text {S}_{L}\), the map \(\tau\) sents each node to its atomic number, \(\delta\) is a Kronecker delta function, and \({\mathcal {E}}_I\) is the set containing all the intermolecular edges in the complex \({\mathcal {G}}_I\). The output of PiPool is given by
where \(q^T\) is a learnable parameter. And \({\tilde{Z}}_{kl}\) can be considerd an approximation of interaction matrix
where \(n(T_k,T_l):= \sum _{a_i \in \text {S}_P} \sum _{a_j \in \text {S}_L}\delta \left( \tau (a_i),T_k\right) \delta \left( \tau (a_j),T_l\right) \Theta (d_{\rho }  d_{ij})\), \(d_{\rho }\) is the interaction cutoff distance, and \(\Theta (\cdot )\) a Heaviside step function which sents positive number to 1, and nonpositive to 0.
The output pooling layer
The output pooling layer is based on a graphlevel representation. We pool the node representations for the graph embedding, first. Then we apply the embedding for the affinity prediction. That is,
where \(a_i^{(L)}\) is the node representation for atom i at the last layer of the PAGA model.
Optimization objective
The optimization objective of PAGA is to minimize the loss between the predicted interaction matrix \({\tilde{Z}}\) and the ground truth interaction matrix Z, as well as the loss between the predicted affinity \({\tilde{y}}\) nd the ground truth affinity y [2].
The loss function for interaction matrix is given by
where \(\text {F}(\cdot )\) is the flatten operation for matrix and \({\mathcal {D}}\) is the training set. The loss function for addinity prediction is
Then the overall optimization formulated as
where \(\lambda\) is a hyperparameter that controls the tradeoff between the two loss terms.
Experiment
The publicly available standard PDBbindv2016 dataset^{Footnote 1} is used to train and validate our module. This dataset contains a total of 13,283 proteinligand complexes, with experimental binding affinities expressed as the negative logarithm \(pk_a\) of the determined value (e.g, \(\text {log}K_d\), \(\text {log}K_i\), \(\text {log}IC_{50}\)). The dataset is hierarchically structured into three nested sets: the General set, the Refined set, and the Core set, with 13,283, 4057, and 290 complexes, respectively. The Core set is used as the test set, a randomly selected subset of 1000 complexes from the difference between the Refined set and the Core set is used as the validation set. The remaining 11,993 complexes in the General set are used as the training set [11, 55].
Evaluation metrics
To evaluate the performance of our model, we employe four metrics that are widely adopted in computational biology to quantify the accuracy and precision of predictive models: Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R), and the standard deviation (SD) in regression [2, 11, 35]. RMSE and MAE provide measures of the average error between predicted and actual values, whereas R and SD are used to assess the correlation and dispersion of the predicted values, respectively. The detail is introduced in Additional file 1. We selecte these metrics to comprehensively evaluate the performance of our model on the test data.
Baselines
To demonstrate the effectiveness of our CurvAGN model, we compare it against several representative methods from different categories, including freespatial structure methods, 3D coordinatebased methods, distancebased methods, and angledistance based methods.

Freespatial structure methods: only consider the topological structure of proteinligand complexes and neglect the spatial structure and interaction information.

GraphDTA [56] includes four different variants based on different types of GNNs (GCN, GAT, GIN, and GATGCN).


3D coordinatebased methods:directly utilize atomic coordinates based on GNNs.

SGCN [17]: is based on GCN.


Distancebased methods: learn graph representation by employing distance information.

MAT [33]: learns graph representation by employing a moleculeaugmented attention mechanism with the interatomic distances.

CMPNN [34]: is an edgeoriented model that strengthens the message interactions between edges (bonds) and nodes (atoms) while propagating the distance information.

GNNDTI [13]: leverages GAT to represent a proteinligand complex graph constructed by the distance between atoms.

ELGN [35]: considers distance information and longdistance interaction information between molecules, as well as the topology information of bonds


Angledistance based methods: mploy angle and distance information in GNNs.
Implementation details
Let protein set be \(S_P:=\{\text {C},\text {N},\text {O},\text {S}\}\) and ligand set be \(S_L:=\{\text {C},\text {N},\text {O},\text {S}, \text {P},\text {I},\text {Cl},\text {B},\text {F}\}\), we construct the complex interaction graph and interaction matrix by setting cutoffthreshold \(d_{\theta } = 5\) and the interaction cutoff distance \(d_{\rho } = 12\) as previous work [8, 57].
For initial node features, we follow the approach in [2, 11], where an atom is represented by an 18dimensional vector (refer to Table 1 in previous work). To distinguish between ligand and protein atoms, we encode an atom using a 36dimensional vector, where the first half represents raw features and the second half are all zeros for a ligand and vice versa for a protein atom. The initial edge features consist of vectors of 26 dimensions, where the 26th dimension represents the Euclidean distance between the atoms of the edge, and the first 50 dimensions are filter Forman curvatures with filtration values set as \(\{0.1*i:i=0,1,2,\ldots ,49\}\).
The distance and curvature embedding dimensions are both set to 128. Each vector undergoes transformation matrix action, resulting in an embedding of 128 dimensions. To train the model, The Adam optimizer with a learning rate of 0.001 and the batch size of 32 is used to train the model. The dropout rate is set to 0.2, and the hyperparameter \(\gamma\) is set to = 1.75. In the PAGA layers, there are 8 attention heads and 6 angle domains. We list the all settings as following Table 2.
All the experiments are conducted on one NVIDIA GeForce RTX 2080 Ti GPU and Inter Xeon Gold 5218 16Core Processor. And the performance of all the baselines refers to [2].
Performance evaluation
We conduct a comparison of our CurvAGN model and baseline models on the PDBbind v2016 core set. The average and standard deviation of four indicators for testing performance, obtained from five random runs, are presented in Table 3. Overall, the results show that the CurvAGN model outperforms all other models in the dataset.
According to [2, 35], the performance of proteinligand binding affinity prediction models is heavily influenced by their ability to utilize the spatial structure of proteinligand complexes. GraphDTA models, which do not use spatial structure, perform poorly. SGCN, which leverages atom coordinates, performs better than the GCN, a variant of GraphDTA. However, SGCN’s performance suffers because its coordinate operations are not rotation invariant. GNNDTI, with distance information, clearly improves performance over GAT. Among distancebased methods, ELGN and CMPNN focus more on message communication between nodes and edges, resulting in better performance than MAT and GNNDTI. ELGN leverages longrange intermolecular interactions and incorporates the topology information of bonds, resulting in the best performance among these distancebased methods.
DimeNet is capable of learning the angle and distance structure and outperforms SGCN marginally. SIGN, although it considers angle information, lacks the topology of edges, which could be the main reason for its weaker performance compared to ELGN. Our proposed CurvAGN, on the other hand, captures more spatial information in the form of curvature and utilizes an adaptive graph attention mechanism, resulting in superior performance compared to SIGN.
Ablation analysis
To validate the importance of multiscale curvature, heterophily, and multihead GAT on predicting proteinligand binding affinity, we compare CurvAGN and its variants on the test data.

CurvAGNC: uses the adaptive GAT layer without curvature information.

CurvAGNH: uses the vanilla multihead GAT layer.

CurvAGNV: uses the adaptive GAT layer.
As can be observed in the Fig. 2, CurvAGN performs best among all the variants, proving the necessity of curvature information, heterophily and multihead GAT in predicting proteinligand binding affinity. Specifically, CurvAGNC performs worse than CurvAGN because it fails to capture the curvature information. CurvAGNH suffers from the lack of heterophily, which leads to a performance drop. The different attributes of nodes have varying impacts on the interactions between neighboring nodes. CurvAGNV fails to capture this, resulting in a decrease in performance. CurvAGNC has a larger prediction error than CurvAGNH and CurvAGNV, indicating that curvature information plays a greater role in improving the model’s performance.
To check whether the gains made by our method are uniformly distributed across all these 290. We compare the average absolute prediction error of the SIGN and CurvAGN models on the test set across 5 random runs, and the distribution of the difference in absolute prediction error between SIGN and CurvAGN on these complexes is shown in the Fig. 3. In the Fig. 3, the xaxis represents complexes, the yaxis denotes average absolute prediction error, and the area under the curve represents the difference in the total sum of absolute errors between SIGN and CurvAGN on the test set. It is easy to see that the area under the curve above the xaxis (70.67) is greater than the area under the curve below the xaxis (41.50). This implies that CurvAGN performs better than SIGN on average. However, the gains of CurvAGN are not consistent across all complexes, as there are 127 samples with negative ycoordinates.
We compare wellperforming complexes with poorlyperforming complexes and find our model performs better for complexes with a high ratio of the number of ligandprotein atom pairs with a distance less than 4.8\(\text{\AA }{}\) to the total number of ligandprotein atom pairs. This may suggest that intramolecular interactions within the protein and the ligand interfere with the prediction. Further research and analysis is introduced in Additional file 1.
Conclusion
In this work, we propose CurvAGN, a curvaturebased GNN model to predict proteinligand binding affinity with improved performance, through incorporating the finegrained geometric information, interaction information among atoms, and heterophily in the complex graph for enhanced representation learning. We first design a curvature block that encodes multiscale curvature information. We then introduce a polarinspired adaptive graph attention block (PAGA) to capture the heterophily in the complex graph and also the angle and distance information. Additionally, since node attributes rely on the graph structure differently, we use vector attention in the edge2edge layer of PAGA which allows the model to learn different attention weights for different attributes in the node. Additionally, since node attributes rely on the graph structure differently, we use vector attention in the edge2edge layer of PAGA which allows the model to learn different attention weights for different attributes in the node. We train the model on the standard PDBbindv2016 dataset and its experimental result outperforms SIGN by 7.5% in RMSE and 9.4% in MAE which confirms that the proposed CurvAGN model is effective in improving proteinligand binding affinity prediction.
For proteinligand binding affinity prediction, the accuracy of the prediction is important for the design and development of drugs, understanding protein function and interaction mechanisms, etc. Therefore, even if the lift in RMSE is small, our method can improve the accuracy of the prediction and provide more reliable and useful results.
Future research
We believe that further exploration is warranted to address the issue that our model may not improve prediction accuracy for all proteinligand complexes. This investigation cannot only reveal the applicability range of our model but also provide new insights for its further improvement. Additionally, we aim to incorporate the overall geometric information of the complexes, such as topological information, into our network structure. Finally, we aspire to apply our model to other areas of biology, such as miRNAdisease association prediction [58] and drug repositioning [59].
Availibility of data and materials
We use the publicly available standard PDBbindv2016 dataset http://www.pdbbind.org.cn/.
References
Liu X, Huitao F, Jie W, Kelin X. Persistent spectral hypergraphbased machine learning (PSHML) for proteinligand binding affinity prediction. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(5)
Li S, Zhou J, Xu T, Huang L, Wang F, Xiong H, Huang W, Dou D, Xiong H. Structureaware interactive graph neural networks for the prediction of proteinligand binding affinity. In: Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD conference on knowledge discovery & data mining; 2021. p. 975–985
Allen WJ, Balius TE, Mukherjee S, Brozell SR, Moustakas DT, Lang PT, Case DA, Kuntz ID, Rizzo RC. Dock 6: impact of new features and current docking performance. J Comput Chem. 2015;36(15):1132–56.
Jain AN. Surflex: fully automatic flexible molecular docking using a molecular similaritybased search engine. J Med Chem. 2003;46(4):499–511.
Vina A. Improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading trott, oleg; olson, arthur j. J Comput Chem. 2010;31(2):455–61.
Wang DD, Chan MT. Proteinligand binding affinity prediction based on profiles of intermolecular contacts. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2022;20:1088–96.
Kinnings SL, Liu N, Tonge PJ, Jackson RM, Xie L, Bourne PE. A machine learningbased method to improve docking scoring functions and its application to drug repurposing. J Chem Inf Model. 2011;51(2):408–19.
Ballester PJ, Mitchell JB. A machine learning approach to predicting proteinligand binding affinity with applications to molecular docking. Bioinformatics. 2010;26(9):1169–75.
Dong S, Wang P, Abbas K. A survey on deep learning and its applications. Comput Sci Rev. 2021;40: 100379.
Ragoza M, Hochuli J, Idrobo E, Sunseri J, Koes DR. Proteinligand scoring with convolutional neural networks. J Chem Inf Model. 2017;57(4):942–57.
StepniewskaDziubinska MM, Zielenkiewicz P, Siedlecki P. Development and evaluation of a deep learning model for proteinligand binding affinity prediction. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(21):3666–74.
Wallach, I., Dzamba, M., Heifets, A. Atomnet: a deep convolutional neural network for bioactivity prediction in structurebased drug discovery. 2015 arXiv preprint arXiv:1510.02855
Lim J, Ryu S, Park K, Choe YJ, Ham J, Kim WY. Predicting drugtarget interaction using a novel graph neural network with 3D structureembedded graph representation. J Chem Inf Model. 2019;59(9):3981–8.
Sun M, Zhao S, Gilvary C, Elemento O, Zhou J, Wang F. Graph convolutional networks for computational drug development and discovery. Brief Bioinform. 2019;21(3):919–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbz042.
Jiang D, Hsieh CY, Wu Z, Kang Y, Wang J, Wang E, Liao B, Shen C, Xu L, Wu J, Cao D, Hou T. Interactiongraphnet: a novel and efficient deep graph representation learning framework for accurate proteinligand interaction predictions. J Med Chem. 2021;64(24):18209–32. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.jmedchem.1c01830.
Jiang D, Hsieh CY, Wu Z, Kang Y, Wang J, Wang E, Liao B, Shen C, Xu L, Wu J. Interactiongraphnet: a novel and efficient deep graph representation learning framework for accurate proteinligand interaction predictions. J Med Chem. 2021;64(24):18209–32.
Danel T, Spurek P, Tabor J, Smieja M, Struski L, Slowik A, Maziarka L. Spatial graph convolutional networks. In: Neural information processing: 27th international conference, ICONIP 2020, Bangkok, Thailand, November 18–22, 2020, Proceedings, Part V. Springer; 2020. p. 668–75.
Volkov M, Turk JA, Drizard N, Martin N, Hoffmann B, GastonMathe Y, Rognan D. On the frustration to predict binding affinities from proteinligand structures with deep neural networks. J Med Chem. 2022;65(11):7946–58.
Gasteiger J, Groß J, Günnemann S. Directional message passing for molecular graphs. In: International conference on learning representations 2019
Leach AR. Molecular modelling: principles and applications. London: Pearson Education; 2001.
Helms V, Wade RC. Computational alchemy to calculate absolute protein ligand binding free energy. J Am Chem Soc. 1998;120(12):2710–3.
Cao Y, Li L. Improved proteinligand binding affinity prediction by using a curvaturedependent surfacearea model. Bioinformatics. 2014;30(12):1674–80.
Chung FR, Yau ST. Logarithmic Harnack inequalities. Math Res Lett. 1996;3(6):793–812.
Forman R. Bochner’s method for cell complexes and combinatorial RICCI curvature. Discret Comput Geom. 2003;29(3):323–74.
Li H, Cao J, Zhu J, Liu Y, Zhu Q, Wu G. Curvature graph neural network. Inf Sci. 2022;592:50–66.
Ye Z, Liu KS, Ma T, Gao J, Chen C. Curvature graph network. In: International conference on learning representations 2019
Wee J, Xia K. Ollivier persistent RICCI curvature (OPRC) based molecular representation for drug design; 2020; arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.10281
Yu L, Qiu W, Lin W, Cheng X, Xiao X, Dai J. Hgdti: predicting drugtarget interaction by using information aggregation based on heterogeneous graph neural network. BMC Bioinform. 2022;23(1):126.
Yang Z, Zhong W, Lv Q, Dong T, YuChian Chen C. Geometric interaction graph neural network for predicting proteinligand binding affinities from 3d structures (GIGN). J Phys Chem Lett. 2023;14(8):2020–33.
Yang T, Wang Y, Yue Z, Yang Y, Tong Y, Bai J. Graph pointer neural networks. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol 36; 2022. p. 8832–8839
Sun J, Zhang L, Zhao S, Yang Y. Improving your graph neural networks: a highfrequency booster; 2022 arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.08251
Bo D, Wang X, Shi C, Shen H. Beyond lowfrequency information in graph convolutional networks. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence, vol. 35; 2021. p. 3950–3957
Maziarka L, Danel T, Mucha S, Rataj K, Tabor J, Jastrz kebski Sl. Molecule attention transformer. 2020 arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.08264
Song Y, Zheng S, Niu Z, Fu ZH, Lu Y, Yang Y. Communicative representation learning on attributed molecular graphs. In: IJCAI, vol. 2020; 2020, p. 2831–2838
Yi Y, Wan X, Zhao K, OuYang L, Zhao P. Predicting proteinligand binding affinity with equivariant line graph network. 2022; arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.16098
Jost J, Jost J. Riemannian geometry and geometric analysis, vol. 42005. Berlin: Springer; 2008.
Najman L, Romon P. Modern approaches to discrete curvature. Berlin: Springer; 2017.
Ollivier Y. Ricci curvature of metric spaces. CR Math. 2007;345(11):643–6.
Lott J, Villani C. Ricci curvature for metricmeasure spaces via optimal transport. Ann Math. 2009;03–991
Ollivier Y. Ricci curvature of Markov chains on metric spaces. J Funct Anal. 2009;256(3):810–64.
Bonciocat AI, Sturm KT. Mass transportation and rough curvature bounds for discrete spaces. J Funct Anal. 2009;256(9):2944–66.
Lin Y, Lu L, Yau ST. Ricci curvature of graphs. Tohoku Math J Second Ser. 2011;63(4):605–27.
Wee J, Xia K. Forman persistent RICCI curvature (FPRC)based machine learning models for proteinligand binding affinity prediction. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(6):136.
Sreejith R, Mohanraj K, Jost J, Saucan E, Samal A. Forman curvature for complex networks. J Stat Mech Theory Exp. 2016;2016(6): 063206.
Pandit S, Chau DH, Wang S, Faloutsos C. Netprobe: a fast and scalable system for fraud detection in online auction networks. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on world wide web; 2007, p. 01–210
Du L, Shi X, Fu Q, Ma X, Liu H, Han S, Zhang D. GBKGNN: Gated bikernel graph neural networks for modeling both homophily and heterophily. In: Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022; 2022. p. 1550–1558
Fang Z, Xu L, Song G, Long Q, Zhang Y. Polarized graph neural networks. In: Proceedings of the ACM web conference 2022; 2022. p. 1404–1413
Jin D, Yu Z, Huo C, Wang R, Wang X, He D, Han J. Universal graph convolutional networks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2021;34:10654–64.
Li Y, Lin B, Luo B, Gui N. Graph representation learning beyond node and homophily. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2022;
AbuElHaija S, Perozzi B, Kapoor A, Alipourfard N, Lerman K, Harutyunyan H, Ver Steeg G, Galstyan A. Mixhop: Higherorder graph convolutional architectures via sparsified neighborhood mixing. In: International conference on machine learning. PMLR; 2019. p. 21–29
Bi W, Du L, Fu Q, Wang Y, Han S, Zhang D. MMGNN: Mixmoment graph neural network towards modeling neighborhood feature distribution. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM international conference on web search and data mining, 2023. p. 132–140
Dong Y, Ding K, Jalaian B, Ji S, Li J. Adagnn: Graph neural networks with adaptive frequency response filter. In: Proceedings of the 30th ACM international conference on information & knowledge management, 2021. p. 392–401
Li S, Kim D, Wang, Q. Beyond lowpass filters: adaptive feature propagation on graphs. In: Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases. research track: European conference, ECML PKDD 2021, Bilbao, Spain, September 13–17, 2021, Proceedings, Part II 21. Springer; 2021. p. 450–465
Pei H, Wei, B, Chang KCC, Lei Y, Yang B. GeomGCN: geometric graph convolutional networks. 2020;arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05287
Zheng L, Fan J, Mu Y. Onionnet: a multiplelayer intermolecularcontactbased convolutional neural network for proteinligand binding affinity prediction. ACS Omega. 2019;4(14):15956–65.
Nguyen T, Le H, Quinn TP, Nguyen T, Le TD, Venkatesh S. Graphdta: predicting drugtarget binding affinity with graph neural networks. Bioinformatics. 2021;37(8):1140–7.
Muegge I, Martin YC. A general and fast scoring function for protein ligand interactions: a simplified potential approach. J Med Chem. 1999;42(5):791–804.
He Y, Yang Y, Su X, Zhao B, Xiong S, Hu L. Incorporating higher order network structures to improve miRNA disease association prediction based on functional modularity. Brief Bioinform. 2022;24(1):562.
Zhao BW, Wang L, Hu PW, Wong L, Su XR, Wang BQ, You ZH, Hu L. Fusing higher and lowerorder biological information for drug repositioning via graph representation learning. IEEE Trans Emerg Top Comput. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1109/TETC.2023.3239949.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
Funding
This work is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFB4500300) and, in part, by key research project of Zhejiang Lab (No. 2022PI0AC01).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
J. Wu designed research; J. Wu, H. Chen, M. Cheng and H. Xiong performed research; J. Wu and H. Chen analyzed data; and J. Wu, H. Chen, M. Cheng and H. Xiong wrote the paper.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Code available
Code can be found from this link https://github.com/tumancao/CurvAGN.
Competing interest
No competing interest is declared.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1.
Supplemental provides details of valuation metrics used in this work and the relation between complex structure and model performance.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Wu, J., Chen, H., Cheng, M. et al. CurvAGN: Curvaturebased Adaptive Graph Neural Networks for Predicting ProteinLigand Binding Affinity. BMC Bioinformatics 24, 378 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s1285902305503w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s1285902305503w