Are 2D fingerprints still valuable for drug discovery?
Kaifu Gao, Duc Duy Nguyen, Vishnu Sresht, Alan M. Mathiowetz, Meihua, Tu, and Guo-Wei Wei

TL;DR
This study evaluates the effectiveness of classical 2D molecular fingerprints in drug discovery tasks, finding they perform comparably to advanced 3D structure-based models in several key applications.
Contribution
The paper provides a comprehensive comparison of 2D fingerprints with 3D structure-based methods across multiple drug discovery datasets, highlighting the continued relevance of 2D fingerprints.
Findings
2D fingerprints perform well in toxicity, solubility, and binding affinity predictions.
2D models are comparable to 3D models in several tasks.
3D models outperform 2D in complex protein-ligand binding predictions.
Abstract
Recently, molecular fingerprints extracted from three-dimensional (3D) structures using advanced mathematics, such as algebraic topology, differential geometry, and graph theory have been paired with efficient machine learning, especially deep learning algorithms to outperform other methods in drug discovery applications and competitions. This raises the question of whether classical 2D fingerprints are still valuable in computer-aided drug discovery. This work considers 23 datasets associated with four typical problems, namely protein-ligand binding, toxicity, solubility and partition coefficient to assess the performance of eight 2D fingerprints. Advanced machine learning algorithms including random forest, gradient boosted decision tree, single-task deep neural network and multitask deep neural network are employed to construct efficient 2D-fingerprint based models. Additionally,…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
