
==== Front
BMC Bioinformatics
BMC Bioinformatics
BMC Bioinformatics
1471-2105
BioMed Central London

38114937
5593
10.1186/s12859-023-05593-6
Research
Advancing drug–target interaction prediction: a comprehensive graph-based approach integrating knowledge graph embedding and ProtBert pretraining
Djeddi Warith Eddine waritheddine.jeddi@isikef.u-jendouba.tn

12
Hermi Khalil 2
Ben Yahia Sadok 35
Diallo Gayo 4
1 grid.12574.35 0000000122959819 LR11ES14, Faculty of Sciences of Tunis, University of Tunis El Manar, Campus Universitaire, 2092 Tunis, Tunisia
2 https://ror.org/000g0zm60 grid.442518.e 0000 0004 0492 9538 High Institute of Informatics in Kef, University of Jendouba, Saleh Ayech, 8189 Jendouba, Tunisia
3 https://ror.org/0443cwa12 grid.6988.f 0000 0001 1010 7715 Department of Software Science, Tallinn University of Technology, Ehitajate tee-5, 12618 Tallinn, Estonia
4 https://ror.org/057qpr032 grid.412041.2 0000 0001 2106 639X Bordeaux Population Health Inserm 1219, University of Bordeaux, rue Léo Saignat, 33000 Bordeaux, France
5 grid.10825.3e 0000 0001 0728 0170 The Maersk Mc-Kinney Moller Institute, Southern Syddansk Universitet, Alsion 2, 6400 Sønderborg, Denmark
19 12 2023
19 12 2023
2023
24 48829 6 2023
30 11 2023
© The Author(s) 2023, corrected publication 2024
2023
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 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.
Background

The pharmaceutical field faces a significant challenge in validating drug target interactions (DTIs) due to the time and cost involved, leading to only a fraction being experimentally verified. To expedite drug discovery, accurate computational methods are essential for predicting potential interactions. Recently, machine learning techniques, particularly graph-based methods, have gained prominence. These methods utilize networks of drugs and targets, employing knowledge graph embedding (KGE) to represent structured information from knowledge graphs in a continuous vector space. This phenomenon highlights the growing inclination to utilize graph topologies as a means to improve the precision of predicting DTIs, hence addressing the pressing requirement for effective computational methodologies in the field of drug discovery.

Results

The present study presents a novel approach called DTIOG for the prediction of DTIs. The methodology employed in this study involves the utilization of a KGE strategy, together with the incorporation of contextual information obtained from protein sequences. More specifically, the study makes use of Protein Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (ProtBERT) for this purpose. DTIOG utilizes a two-step process to compute embedding vectors using KGE techniques. Additionally, it employs ProtBERT to determine target–target similarity. Different similarity measures, such as Cosine similarity or Euclidean distance, are utilized in the prediction procedure. In addition to the contextual embedding, the proposed unique approach incorporates local representations obtained from the Simplified Molecular Input Line Entry Specification (SMILES) of drugs and the amino acid sequences of protein targets.

Conclusions

The effectiveness of the proposed approach was assessed through extensive experimentation on datasets pertaining to Enzymes, Ion Channels, and G-protein-coupled Receptors. The remarkable efficacy of DTIOG was showcased through the utilization of diverse similarity measures in order to calculate the similarities between drugs and targets. The combination of these factors, along with the incorporation of various classifiers, enabled the model to outperform existing algorithms in its ability to predict DTIs. The consistent observation of this advantage across all datasets underlines the robustness and accuracy of DTIOG in the domain of DTIs. Additionally, our case study suggests that the DTIOG can serve as a valuable tool for discovering new DTIs.

Keywords

Drug–target interaction prediction
Knowledge graph embedding
COVID-19
Cosine similarity
ProtBERT
issue-copyright-statement© BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2023
==== Body
pmcBackground

In recent years, pharmaceutical scientists have placed significant emphasis on both developing new drugs and repurposing existing ones based on established knowledge. Drug repurposing involves identifying new potential uses for existing drugs or discovering new drug candidates. An essential aspect of drug discovery and repurposing is identifying interactions between drugs and target proteins. These interactions can be determined through various methods, including in vivo, in vitro, and in silico experiments. Predicting DTIs can be broken down into four groups based on how much is known about the drug compounds and the target proteins: known drug versus known target, known drug versus new target candidate, new drug candidate versus known target, and new drug candidate versus new target candidate. The primary hypothesis of these studies is that if drug d interacts with protein p, then drug compounds similar to d are likely to interact with protein p, and proteins similar to p are likely to interact with drug d. Additionally, drug compounds similar to d are likely to interact with proteins similar to p. This idea supports the assumption that drugs and targets with similar traits may interact in similar ways. It shows how important it is to use similarity information to guess how drugs and targets might interact.

It has been known for a long time that experimental methods based on clinical trials are slow, expensive, and require a lot of resources to be used [1–4]. To mitigate these challenges, in-silico experiments have gained popularity as a cost-effective alternative. In-silico prediction of unknown DTIs has become a widely adopted approach for drug repurposing and development. This plan includes two main ways to guess how drugs will interact with their targets: molecular docking methods [5] and ML methods [6]. Researchers can quickly look into and guess how drugs might interact with their targets by using computer simulations and advanced ML algorithms. This speeds up the process of finding new drugs and makes drug development more targeted and effective.

For instance, in the context of COVID-19, in the beginning, because of the lack of specific effective antiviral therapies, a wide variety of strategies have been investigated to fight this pandemic’s [7]. Among them, one potential strategy is to inhibit the interaction between the virus and ACE2 receptors in host cells. In addition, various pharmaceuticals, such as glucocorticoids, COX inhibitors, and immunosuppressants, have been shown to effectively address the inflammatory response. Notably, mucolytic drugs may also mitigate pulmonary edema and combat viral infections. On the other hand, DL has emerged as a critical tool in the fight against the COVID-19 pandemic, offering valuable insights into epidemiology, diagnosis, and disease progression [8]. Some researchers are looking at the 3D or 2D structure of the SARS-CoV-2 virus proteins to learn more about drugs and compounds that could be used as drugs [9, 10]. However, the 3D structure of many targets or proteins is not known, which could make it harder for structure-based methods to make predictions. In some other approaches, the PPI networks have been studied to discover HP-PPI between SARS-CoV-2 and human proteins [11]. Other methods, such as SANE [12], try to find new uses for drugs that are already in use against COVID-19. The process involves integrating information pertaining to the drugs and the virus sequence into a framework designed for attention-based pre-search network embedding. Initially, the researchers gathered fundamental data pertaining to drug SMILES and virus sequences, alongside a valuable dataset encompassing drug-virus interactions known as the Human Drug-Virus Interaction Database (HDVD). The process of extracting sequence features relies on a configuration consisting of an encoder and a decoder.

On the other side, the problem of no verified virus-drug associations poses a significant challenge in the search for effective treatments against emerging viruses like SARS-CoV-2 [13]. However, the CMNMF technique offers a promising solution. By integrating multiple sources of biological data, including genetic information and protein interactions, CMNMF enables a holistic analysis of potential drug interactions. Unlike traditional methods, CMNMF doesn’t rely solely on existing associations, allowing it to navigate the cold-start problem efficiently. This approach not only accelerates the identification of potential drug candidates but also enhances the accuracy of predictions.

A KG serves as a structured data framework connecting entities and relationships. In this setting, KGE techniques turn entities and relationships into continuous vector spaces, which makes ML applications easier to use. This innovation has found practical use in the field of drug discovery, where applicable KGs have been increasingly created [14, 15]. These specialized KGs incorporate drugs, genes, and diseases as entities, capturing their intricate interactions as relationships. This integration of KGs and embedding techniques empowers researchers to gain valuable insights and make informed decisions in the complex landscape of drug development. Predicting the missing links between these entities can be viewed as one of several essential drug discovery tasks. In contrast, target discovery identifies missing links between genes and diseases. KGE models, which learn the low-dimensional representation of entities and relationships, have been employed to complete these tasks. These models are distinctive in that their predictions are components of processes that can culminate in physical experimentation in the real world and even clinical trials. The latter can incur substantial financial, regulatory, and time-related costs and significantly impact efforts to improve patient health. Recently, neural network-based approaches have become popular for KGE due to their ability to capture complex and non-linear relationships within the graph data. As an illustration, KGNN [16] takes a different approach by incorporating GCNs with neighborhood sampling, enabling the explicit extraction of neighborhood relations. SumGNN [17] utilizes KG to extract manageable pathways by incorporating a graph summarization module focused on subgraphs. Meanwhile, DDKG [18] refines drug embeddings by considering both neighboring node embeddings and triple facts through an attention mechanism. Lastly, KG2ECapsule [19] represents a noteworthy advancement by integrating capsule networks to model multi-relational DDI data explicitly based on biomedical KG in an end-to-end manner.

Although there are several methods for the prediction of DTIs that have shown promising results [20], some challenges remain. Current methods do not explicitly consider the drug–target knowledge graph (i.e., structured knowledge) and sequence data to make accurate predictions.

The contributions of this paper are summarized as follows: The proposed approach uses the KG to generate the similarities between drugs–drugs and targets–targets and the KGEs of drugs and targets. We rely on the knowledge graph since it is a structured knowledge database in which entities (e.g., drugs or proteins) are represented as nodes and relationships between these entities are represented as edges, providing comprehensive and rich semantics for organizing and understanding information.

To capture the contextual information from other different embedding strategies, we use a KGE for drugs and ProtBERT embeddings [21] for target sequences. ProtBERT [21] is a variant of BERT specifically designed for protein sequences. ProtBERT embeddings are advantageous because they capture the intricate relationships between amino acids in proteins, including spatial and sequential dependencies. This representation captures contextual information, allowing the model to understand the sequential nature of amino acids in the protein. These embeddings are especially useful when dealing with tasks related to protein structure, function, and interactions. By combining these embeddings and feeding them into a specific classifier, we enable the model to understand both the semantic relationships between drugs and proteins in the knowledge graph and the sequential information within protein sequences. This combined representation provides a comprehensive view of the drug-protein interactions, allowing our model to make more informed predictions based on both structured knowledge and sequence data.

The approach can extract the embedding by focusing on the local representations from the SMILES of each drug and the amino acid sequence information of the protein target.

DTIOG extracts the characteristics of KG to better utilize the characteristics of the drug–target relationship. Predicting links with knowledge graph integration models requires the data to be modeled as a graph [22]. The goal is to predict new links between entities in the graph. We use bipartite graphs from biomedical knowledge bases to generate informative graphs around DTIs.

Related work

Traditional computing methods for discovering DTIs can be broadly divided into two categories: ligand-based approaches and structure-based approaches. Docking simulations are used in structure-based approaches [23, 24], but they cannot always be used when the 3D structures of the target protein are not available. On the other hand, ligand-based techniques are another approach to discovering DTIs. Still, they must improve their accuracy when only a few binding ligands are available for the target protein [25]. Recently, there has been a lot of activity in bioinformatics using data-driven approaches, mainly ML and DL algorithms, to guess how biomolecules will connect with each other [26, 27]. These advanced techniques have become increasingly popular due to their ability to analyze complex biological data. Concurrently, network representation learning methods have emerged as a vital component in this endeavor. These methods can be broadly classified into three categories: matrix factorization-based, random walk-based, and neural network (NN)-based methods [28].

Unlike homogeneous networks, heterogeneous networks integrate data from various sources, such as drugs, targets, and related diseases. Several computational approaches have been proposed to fuse heterogeneous network data. For example, DeepWalk is a DL method that calculates similarities in a tripartite, heterogeneous network constructed from linked biomedical datasets [29]. The deepDTnet method [30] uses deep neural networks for graph representation algorithms to learn low-dimensional vector representations for drugs and targets/proteins that are still useful. This approach applies PU-matrix completion to predict new DTIs. The DTINet method [3] uses matrix factorization and graph embedding to guess new DTIs from a complex graph. Moreover, DTINet combines various types of drugs and target proteins to build a comprehensive, heterogeneous network.

AOPEDF [31] presents a computational approach for molecular target identification and drug repurposing centered around known drugs and targets. The first step of the method is to get reduced-dimensional vector representations of characteristics that capture arbitrary-order proximity from a biological network that links drugs, targets (i.e., proteins), and diseases. This network is highly connected and has many different types of connections. Subsequently, AOPEDF utilizes these informative vector representations for drugs and targets/proteins, employing a sequence of deep forest classifiers to deduce new DTIs.

Zhao et al. suggested the LGDTI method in [32]. It is a new way to determine DTIs by learning from large graph representations. This method gathers both local and global structural data about the graph, and it uses the GCNs to put together the node’s first-order neighbor data. Moreover, it learns the high-order neighbor information of nodes through the graph embedding method, DeepWalk. The resulting features are fed into a Random Forest classifier to infer new DTIs.

Cheng et al. [33] came up with the GraphMS model, which is an end-to-end network model made just for figuring out DTIs using low-level representations. One important thing about it is that it puts a lot of weight on node-level representation accountability. This is done by making sure that node-level and graph-level representations share as much information as possible with each other. GraphMS also keeps substructure information in the graph-level representation by making the information that flows between the graph-level and substructure representations better. Finally, the model learns meaningful feature embeddings from variant information using an autoencoder. This lets the model make DTI predictions that are accurate and reliable.

A computer method called DTiGEMS+ [34] combines graph embedding, graph mining, and putting together similarities from different sources of information. This method effectively combines similarity-based and feature-based approaches. It treats the problem of finding new DTIs as a link prediction problem in a complex network. By adding drug–drug and target–target similarity networks to the established DTIs graph, DTiGEMS+ creates this diverse network.

To infer new DTIs, the LRSpNM framework [35] utilizes a matrix completion technique, specifically minimizing the Laplacian regularized Schatten p-norm, to predict new DTIs. The method assumes that similar drugs interact with similar targets and vice versa, leading to a low-rank structure in the DTI matrix. Matrix completion algorithms can then efficiently approximate lower-rank matrices consistent with known interactions, aiding in discovering new DTIs. Schatten’s p-norm approximates the matrix rank, and the regularized Laplacian term is incorporated to enhance the prediction process. Additionally, as a significant portion of the DTI matrix contains unknown interactions, a pre-filling step is employed to improve prediction accuracy.

LRSpNM involves three main steps. Firstly, a pre-processing step is conducted to estimate partial unknown interaction probabilities by considering the K nearest neighbor profiles. Next, Laplacian matrices are computed for drugs and targets based on the original similarity matrices.

The presence of missing interactions in the training set can negatively impact DTI prediction models, reducing accuracy. To solve this problem, WkNNIR [36] is suggested. It combines WkNN with interaction recovery to guess what will happen on the full interaction matrix. WkNNIR has the advantage of appropriately weighting the importance of drug and target similarities based on their local imbalance. In the initial phase, WkNNIR calculates the recovered interactions, which replace the original interactions during the prediction process. Based on the idea that similar drugs interact with similar targets and targets interact with similar drugs, interactions that are missing can be guessed by looking at interactions with drugs or targets that are close by.

ALADIN [37] is a localized approach for predicting DTIs. This methodology involves three steps: representation based on similarity, ensemble based on projection, and prediction of new drugs and targets. In the representation step, drug–drug similarities represent the drugs in the similarity space. Specifically, drug di is represented by a vector capturing its chemical similarity to all other drugs, and similarly, targets can be represented based on their similarities with other targets. Drug–drug and target–target similarities are computed based on known interactions using the Jaccard similarity. This better representation looks at both how similar two drugs (or targets) are chemically (genetically) and how similar they are to each other in terms of how they interact with each other.

The DTI-HeNE [38] method takes as inputs a bipartite graph of DTIs and two homogeneous graphs of drug–drug and target–target interactions. The BINE algorithm is then used to turn the DTI bipartite graph into two vectors of drugs and targets that are embedded in each other. The SNF algorithm, on the other hand, turns the uniform graphs of drug–drug and target–target interactions into two similarity matrices, one for drug–drug interactions and the other for target–target interactions. This study uses a knowledge graph as input to generate two KGEs for drugs and targets using KGE methods. Additionally, two similarity matrices, drugs-drugs and targets-targets, are generated from this KG using KGE similarity.

The algorithm iGRLDTI [39] is a recent approach designed to predict DTIs by enhancing the discriminative representations of drugs and targets in a latent feature space. It achieves this by constructing a complex HBIN that integrates biological knowledge about drugs, protein targets, and their interactions. iGRLDTI employs a node-dependent local smoothing strategy, which determines the propagation depth for each biomolecule in HBIN. This adaptive approach mitigates over-smoothing issues and enhances the discriminative power of feature representations. Subsequently, a GBDT classifier is applied to predict novel drug–target interactions. Similarly to iGRLDTI, LG-DTI [40] operates over a heterogeneous information network, modeling the DTI network equipped with biological data on drugs and targets. LG-DTI utilizes both local and global representations of drugs and target proteins. Firstly, it learns local representations from drug molecular structures and protein sequences. Secondly, it employs a semi-supervised heterogeneous network embedding method to capture global representations, taking into account the topological structure of the DTI network. These local and global representations are combined using a concatenation aggregation function, forming the final representations of drugs and targets. These representations are then fed into a Random Forest classifier, enabling LG-DTI to predict DTIs effectively.

We proposed an innovative approach for predicting DTIs, leveraging both contextual and local strategies. In terms of contextual information, DTIOG utilizes KGE techniques such as the DistMult model [41] to generate drug and target embedding vectors. These vectors are derived from the knowledge graph, capturing associations and similarities between drugs and targets. Instead, DTIOG uses ProtBERT, a language model that has already been trained on protein sequences, to figure out how amino acids in proteins are put together. These embeddings, obtained through either KGE or ProtBERT, are integrated into the process of prediction. Adding to that, some recent deep learning-based models that have been pre-trained on a large corpus of protein sequences, such as ProtBERT, have been utilized to extract features of the proteins. For example, ProtBERT can be used to provide meaningful, context-aware representations of protein sequences, which are crucial for the accurate identification of lysine glutarylation sites [42].

For the local strategy, DTIOG gets information about drugs by using the RDKit [45] library to turn SMILES representations into molecular fingerprints. The Avalon fingerprint generator identifies specific fragments within the molecular structure, creating numerical representations for each drug. Regarding protein sequences, DTIOG processes them into feature vectors based on amino acid biochemical properties. A sliding window of size 3 categorizes amino acids into groups (i.e., non-polar, polar neutral, acidic, and basic), transforming sequences into numerical representations.

Additionally, DTIOG calculates the drug–drug and target–target similarity matrices from contextual or local embedding vectors by employing a variety of similarity metrics, including cosine similarity, Euclidean distance, Jaccard similarity, Manhattan distance, and Pearson correlation. These diverse metrics contribute to the creation of comprehensive similarity matrices, enabling a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between drugs and targets. By combining contextual embeddings from KGE or ProtBERT or combining local features derived from SMILES and protein sequences, DTIOG enables a comprehensive understanding of drug–target relationships. It is worth noting that strategies for combining drug and target embeddings are derived from the DTI-HeNE method [38]. These embeddings and features are fed into specific classifiers, allowing the model to grasp both the semantic associations in the knowledge graph and the sequential patterns within protein sequences, enhancing its accuracy in predicting DTIs.

Materials and methods

Contextual embedding

The KGE

The DTIOG uses a network-based approach to build a weighted heterogeneous graph from the DTI’s network. This is further enhanced by incorporating different drug and target similarity networks. The resulting graph, denoted as G(V, E), comprises a set of n drug nodes, D=d1,d2,…,dn, and a set of l target nodes, T=t1,t2,…,tl. Notably, the knowledge graph G constructed this way contains 131 types of edges. Given G, the DTIs prediction problem may be defined as a link prediction challenge, with the objective being to predict the unknown true interactions between drugs and targets/genes.Fig. 1 The schematic workflow of DTIOG

The KGE strategies will be implemented to introduce the features of each drug and target pair. Specifically, the DistMult embedding method will represent each node in the KG with a feature vector smaller than the actual number of nodes while preserving the graph’s structure and attributes. Then, after using the heterogeneous and complex graph KG to learn feature representations for each drug and target, different similarity metrics between each pair of drugs and each pair of targets will be calculated to create various similarity matrices (i.e., drug–drug and target–target similarities). The similarity matrices will be calculated as part of our method’s workflow. Then, by combining the association and similarity of drug and target matrices, multiple classifiers will be employed to deduce new DTIs (cf. Fig. 1). Our method combines different chemical, genomic, phenotypic, and cellular networks to make features that are useful for biology and pharmacology. Combining the informative vector representations of drugs and targets yields these features.

The ProtBERT embedding

The DTIOG algorithm can rely on ProtBERT embedding [21] of protein sequences to serve as an alternative to traditional KGE. The method uses ProtBERT, a cutting-edge pre-trained language model made just for protein sequences, to gather contextual information. This lets the model understand how the amino acids in the protein are put together. The ProtBERT model [21] is specific to uppercase amino acids and works with a MLM objective. It is trained using these amino acids, so it can only work with capital-letter amino acids. The ProtBERT model was initially trained on the UniRef100 [43] dataset, which encompasses a staggering 217 million protein sequences. It is possible to get a full picture of protein properties by using these embeddings to record complex sequence patterns and biological features.

Local embedding

Drug feature extraction

To extract drug features, we retrieved the SMILES representations of each drug from DrugBank [44]. Subsequently, we utilized the RDKit [45] library to convert these SMILES strings into molecular fingerprints. For each drug, the positions within its fingerprint were assigned a value of 1 if a corresponding fragment was identified within the molecular structure and 0 otherwise. We opted for the Avalon fingerprint generator, which enumerates specific paths and feature classes within the molecular graph, to perform this conversion. We employed a dimensionality reduction strategy using autoencoders [46] to obtain a more compact representation of each drug, resulting in a dimensionality of 64.

Protein feature extraction

The DTIOG algorithm provides a systematic way to convert protein sequences into numerical representations (i.e., feature vectors) based on the biochemical properties of amino acids. The process begins by converting amino acid sequences to feature vectors with a sliding window of size 3. It categorizes amino acids into non-polar, polar-neutral, acidic, and basic groups. The algorithm reads input protein sequences from a FASTA downloaded from the UniProt database [47] and processes them to create feature vectors representing the sequence characteristics. Each feature vector is of length 64 and is built by considering overlapping triplets of amino acids in the protein sequences.

The process of predicting novel DTIs

This section starts with a description of the rationale behind the calculation of contextual and local embeddings during the forecasting phase. Then, a thorough explanation of the overall architecture follows the problem formulation explanation. Figure 2 presents the three main steps: (i) Step 1: The input consists of a matrix representing DTIs, along with two vector embeddings for drugs and targets (cf. Fig. 3). Subsequently, DTIOG computes drug–drug and target–target similarity matrices in the prediction process. It’s essential to highlight that the similarity among drugs, proteins, and their embedding vectors is derived from three scenarios: (a) One way to get similarity and embedding between drugs and targets is to use KGE; (b) Another way is to get similarity and embedding between drugs using KGE and then compute ProtBERT embeddings for the targets; (c) Finally, we get similarity and embedding between drugs using their fingerprints. We also read the targets’ protein sequences in FASTA format and put amino acids into four groups (i.e., basic, acidic, non-polar, and polar neutral). We then process them to create feature vectors representing the sequence characteristics, with each feature vector having a length of 64.

(ii) Step 2: Begin by identifying the row corresponding to the drug di in the drug–drug similarity matrix. Then, sort the values in this row from largest to smallest and select the drugs associated with the n largest values. Similarly, in the target–target similarity matrix, find the row corresponding to the target tj. Then, identify the n targets with the highest similarity. Next, multiply the embedding vector of di by the corresponding weights of the selected n nearest drugs in the drug–drug similarity matrix. Repeat this process for each selected drug, summing up the obtained products to create a new feature Vdintg. Apply the same procedure to the embedding vector of tj. Multiply it by the corresponding weights of the selected n nearest targets in the target–target similarity matrix and sum up these products to obtain a new feature Vtintg. The primary objective at this step is to integrate the drug–drug and target–target similarity matrices into the respective embedding vectors di and tj. Additionally, multiply the embedding vector tj by the weights in the bipartite DTIs matrix (i.e., Mat-int) corresponding to the selected n nearest drugs and tj individually. Sum the products generated for each drug to obtain a new feature Vdtest. Simultaneously, multiply the embedding vector di by the weights in the bipartite DTIs matrix (i.e., Mat-int) corresponding to the n selected nearest targets and di individually. Sum up the products obtained for each target to create a new feature Vttest. This step enables the modeling of interactive pathway information related to known interactions between drugs (more similar to di) and tj, as well as known interactions between di and targets (more similar to tj). Subsequently, a new embedding vector, denoted as Vdfusion, is computed by summing the vectors Vdintg and Vdtest. Similarly, a novel embedding vector, denoted as Vtfusion, is calculated by summing the vectors Vtintg and Vttest.

Finally, concatenating the embedding vectors Vdfusion and Vtfusion enables the creation of an integrated embedding vector for the pair di and tj (cf. Fig. 4). This process effectively incorporates features from both the bipartite DTIs network and the drug–drug and target–target similarity matrix, fostering a comprehensive representation of the relationships between drugs and targets. It is worth noting that the functionalities of Step 2 are the same strategies used by the DTI-HeNE approach [38] to concatenate the embedding vectors Vdfusion and Vtfusion.

(iii) Step 3: The feature vector is represented by X=x1,x2,…,xn∗l and their labels Y=y1,y2,…,yn∗l where n∗l corresponds to the number of drugs multiplied by the number of targets, which constitutes the number of all possible drug and target pairs. Therefore, if there is a known interaction for the drug–target pair, the class label y for this pair equals 1 (y=1); otherwise, the class label is equal to zero (y=0). Thus, it is a binary classification task. The aim is to find novel DTIs with high accuracy and a low false-positive rate. The negative samples in our approach are generated by augmenting a bipartite graph with information regarding the interactions between drugs and targets. Subsequently, it generates lists to track these interactions and calculates the overall number of potential drug–target pairs. Afterwards, it detects and eliminates interactions that are already familiar from the dataset. These remaining negative examples act as substitutes for interactions that have not been recorded in the original dataset, indicating a deficiency of information regarding them. Simultaneously, the code calculates the probability of these potential interactions, a pivotal stage in forecasting interactions that we have not previously encountered. Ultimately, a specific classifier is employed to forecast novel DTIs.

Fig. 2 The process of predicting novel drug–target interactions

Fig. 3 This flowchart illustrates the first two steps of DTIOG, which are the generation of two vector embeddings for drugs (i.e., di), targets (i.e., tj), drug–drug similarity (i.e., Mat-Sim-DD) and target–target similarity (i.e., Mat-Sim-TT) generated from KGE using Cosine similarity by computing the DistMult model

Fig. 4 The process of predicting novel drug–target interactions by emphasizing the creation of an integrated embedding vector for the pair di and tj

Generation of embedding vectors for drugs (di) and targets (tj)

Contextual embedding vectors

The input is a bipartite graph of DTIs, and two embedding vectors, di and tj, have been generated in this step (cf. Fig. 3). DTIOG will use one strategy from the contextual or local categories to develop the two embedding vectors of drugs di and targets tj. In the context of a KG [48] consisting of triplets representing facts ω=≤h,r,t≥ and a fixed embedding space of dimension d, KG embedding aims to map each entity h∈E and relation r∈R into a continuous vector in a uniform embedding space of dimension k=d. This transformation turns the KG into a set of vectors, capturing its information and enabling computations on the graph. KGE tries to make a small, low-dimensional feature space that keeps important structural and property data about the graph. This makes it easier to do calculations with entities and relations. In the field of KGE, techniques can be broadly classified into two categories: (1) representation learning models centered on triplet facts [49] and (2) representation learning models based on entity descriptions [50]. The DTIOG approach specifically emphasizes the use of triplet fact-based representation learning models, particularly the DistMult variant.

When it comes to protein sequences that are stored as text, ProtBERT uses transformer-based language models, more specifically BERT [51]. Given a set of protein sequences denoted as Proteins=p1,p2,…,pn, ProtBERT learns to embed these sequences into continuous vector representations. The complex dependencies and relationships between amino acids in proteins are captured by ProtBERT by processing them as sequences of amino acids. This helps it understand the subtleties of protein sequences.

Local embedding vectors

Molecular fingerprinting is a technique used to represent chemical structures numerically. Initially, the chemical structures of drugs are encoded into SMILES representations (SMILESi). These SMILES strings are then transformed into binary molecular fingerprints (Fi), where each element (fij) in the fingerprint vector indicates the presence (1) or absence (0) of specific predefined chemical substructures within the molecule. The Avalon fingerprint generator is employed to identify these substructures. Subsequently, a dimensionality reduction process using autoencoders (Fi′=Autoencoder(Fi)) is applied to obtain a compact representation of the fingerprint, reducing its dimensionality to, for example, d=64. This reduced-dimensional fingerprint (Fi′) serves as a concise numerical descriptor of the drug’s chemical composition, enabling efficient computations and analysis in drug discovery and related fields.

In the realm of protein sequence analysis, the goal is to transform amino acid sequences into numerical representations, often referred to as feature vectors, which can be utilized for various computational tasks. Let us consider a protein sequence P={a1,a2,…,an}, where ai represents the (ith) amino acid in the sequence. Each amino acid ai can be associated with specific biochemical properties, denoted as ϕ(ai)={p1,p2,…,pm}, where pj represents the (jth) biochemical property of the amino acid.

The DTIOG algorithm employs a systematic approach to convert protein sequences into feature vectors. This process begins by adopting a sliding window of size w (in this case, w=3) to capture local structural information. For each window position i, a subsequence Si={ai,ai+1,…,ai+w-1} is extracted. Subsequently, each amino acid in the subsequence is mapped to its corresponding biochemical properties using the function ϕ(·). These biochemical property vectors are then concatenated to form a composite feature vector Vi for the window Si:Vi=[ϕ(ai),ϕ(ai+1),…,ϕ(ai+w-1)]

As a result, each Vi captures the local biochemical characteristics of the corresponding window in the protein sequence. Considering a protein sequence of length n, this process generates n-w+1 feature vectors.

Moreover, the amino acids can be categorized into distinct groups based on their properties. Let A={a1,a2,…,an} represent the set of amino acids in the protein sequence, and G={g1,g2,…,gk} denote the set of biochemical groups. The algorithm categorizes amino acids into these groups, allowing for the incorporation of group-level information into the feature vectors. Consequently, the feature vectors Vi are enhanced with group-level biochemical properties, providing a comprehensive representation of the protein sequence in a numerical format.

Generation of new drug–target pair embedding vectors

During this particular phase, we utilize the two embedding vectors (i.e., di→ and tj→), along with the two matrices of drug–drug similarity and a target–target similarity (i.e., Mat-Sim-DD and Mat-Sim-TT) and the bipartite DTIs matrix (i.e., Mat-int) to create a new embedding vector of the pair di and tj.

By a specific process [38], we first obtain Vdintg and Vtintg. Next, Vdtest and Vttest are generated. Then, Vdintg and Vdtest are added to obtain Vdfusion, and Vtintg and Vttest are added to obtain Vtfusion. Finally, Vdfusion and Vtfusion are concatenated to obtain an embedding vector of the pair di and tj.

Prediction of DTIs

After getting an embedding vector of the pair di and tj, different classifiers are used to give each pair’s interactions in the vector a probability. Subsequently, the likelihood of a possible interaction between each drug–target pair is estimated. The different classifiers provide us with the probability of interaction for each couple, and we have chosen to display the couples with the highest probabilities (e.g., the top 10 couples). By showing the 10 pairs with the highest interaction probabilities, we can prioritize pairs more likely to have favorable interactions [38]. This approach lets us focus on the most reliable and significant predictions while filtering out less relevant results. Consequently, we can dedicate our efforts to thoroughly analyzing the most pertinent interactions. To determine the pair interaction probabilities di and tj, we employed nine distinct classifiers, including the RF, DT, MLP, K-Neighbors Classifier, Bagging Classifier, Gradient Boosting Classifier, GaussianNB, SGD, etc.

Problem formalization

DTIOG pseudo-code is given in Algorithm 1. The approach takes as inputs the DTIs matrix (i.e., Mat-int), the embedding vectors di, and tj. Initially, we compute the embedding similarity between the set of drugs and the set of targets by utilizing the predefined cosine similarity function. This step results in the generation of similarity matrices for drugs (i.e., Mat-Sim-DD) and for targets (i.e., Mat-Sim-TT). Additionally, alternative predefined functions, such as Euclidean distance, Jaccard similarity, Manhattan distance, or Pearson correlation, can be invoked. Subsequently, we calculate the dot product of the drug embedding vector di and the weights wdz of the n closest drugs Dnear in the Mat-Sim-DD to obtain Vdintg. Adding to that, we computed the dot product of the target embedding vector tj and the weights wtz of the n closest targets Tnear in the Mat-Sim-TT to obtain Vtintg. Vdintg and Vtintg are computed using the following equations [38]:1 Vdintg=∑dz∈DnearWdzdi→

2 Vtintg=∑tz∈TnearWtztj→

Then, we compute the dot product of the target embedding vector tj by the weights wiz of the n closest drugs Dnear in the Mat-int to obtain Vdtest. Therefore, we computed the dot product of the drug embedding vector di by the weights wjz of the n closest targets Tnear in the Mat-int to obtain Vttest. Vdtest and Vttest are computed using the following equations [38]:3 Vdtest=∑dz∈DnearWjztj→

4 Vttest=∑tz∈Tnearwizdi→

Then Vdintg and Vdtest were added to obtain Vdfusion. On the other side, Vtintg and Vttest were added to obtain Vtfusion. Vdfusion and Vtfusion are computed using the following equations [38]:5 Vdfusion=Vdintg+Vdtest

6 Vtfusion=Vtintg+Vttest

Meanwhile, the two vectors Vdfusion and Vtfusion have been concatenated to obtain the new embedding vector of the pair of di-tj [38]. Finally, we use a certain classifier to predict new DTIs based on a fresh embedding vector of di and tj.Algorithm 1 The process of concatenating the embedding vector of the pair di and tj

Illustrative case

Figure 5 presents an illustration that outlines the process of obtaining the vector for the pair di-tj. The pair (DB01071, P35367) and its respective embedding vectors were utilized to execute several steps in generating new vectors for drug–target pairs:Fig. 5 A toy example representing the different steps to obtain new pair vector di-tj

Firstly, we calculate the dot product of the drug embedding vector di associated with DB01071 and the top-5 closest drugs in Mat-Sim-DD to acquire Vdintg. Next, we perform the dot product of the target embedding vector tj associated with P35367 with the weights of the top-5 closest drugs in Mat-int to obtain Vdtest. Subsequently, Vdintg and Vdtest are added to yield Vdfusion.

Secondly, we compute the dot product of the target embedding vector tj associated with P35367 and the five closest targets in Mat-Sim-TT to obtain Vtintg. Similarly, we compute the dot product of the drug embedding vector di associated with DB01071 with the weights of the five closest targets in Mat-int to obtain Vttest. Then, Vtintg and Vttest are added to produce Vtfusion. As a result, both vectors Vdfusion and Vtfusion are concatenated to form the new embedding vector of the pair di and tj.

Finally, DTIOG employs a selected classifier to predict new DTIs based on the newly created embedding vector of the pair di and tj.

Results and discussion

The input data

Using the DGLKE methodology, we integrate various chemicals, genomic, phenotypic, and cellular networks to generate meaningful feature representations for drugs and targets. By combining informative vector representations, we construct a comprehensive knowledge graph comprising approximately 29 million edges that span 131 relationships connecting drugs, diseases, proteins, genes, PPIs for SARS-CoV-2, homo-sapiens, side effects, and more. Table 1 showcases 20 well-established relationships established during the network’s development. In Fig. 6, we present a subset of the constructed KG that interconnects drugs, genes, and PPIs for certain genes. Notably, we emphasize the sources of some connections used in this illustration, which were derived from diverse repositories, including the DGIDB [52] database, the DrugBank database (version 5.1.8), the GNBR [53] database, Hetionet (version 1.0) [54] biomedical knowledge, the STRING [55] database (version 11.0), and the UniProt [47] database. After that, the DistMult model has been used to learn the representations of the entities and relationships in an informative, low-dimensional vector space. We choose the DistMult [41] than using the TransE [56], TransR [57] since it yields the best evaluation of the training model in terms of MRR, Hits@1, Hits@3 and Hits@10 (cf. Table 2) and in terms of entity cosine similarity distribution (cf. Fig. 7). The evaluation experiments of these methods are carried out using a set of reference datasets. Specifically, this dataset is used by [58], which is typically used in DTI prediction, targeting ENZ, IC, and the GPCR. It consists of three different data subsets: ENZ consists of 346 drugs, 657 proteins and 2926 interactions.

IC comprises 169 drugs, 204 proteins and 1476 interactions.

GPCR encompasses 188 drugs, 94 proteins and 634 interactions.

During the prediction process and for the embedding sizes of the drugs and proteins, we fixed the following: (a) 400 dimensions for the prediction process based on KGE for the ENZ, GPCR, and IC datasets; (b) 150 dimensions for the prediction process based on KGE and ProtBERT for the IC dataset; (c) 90 dimensions for the prediction process based on KGE and ProtBERT for the GPCR dataset; (d) 64 dimensions for the prediction process based on local strategies (i.e., molecular fingerprint and protein characteristics) for the ENZ, GPCR, and IC datasets.Table 1 20 known relationships in the knowledge graph network

Relationship	Species	Database	Total interactions	
Gene-disease	SARS-CoV-2	CTD database [61]	28	
Gene-drug	Homo-sapiens	CTD database [61]	9291	
Protein–drug	Homo-sapiens	DrugBank [44]	20, 992	
Protein–protein	Homo-sapiens	STRING database [55]	11,606735	
Protein–protein	Mus-musculus	STRING database [55]	10, 016742	
Protein-GOT CC	Mus-musculus	UniProt-GOA [62]	69, 373	
Protein-GOT BP	Mus-musculus	UniProt-GOA [62]	125, 658	
Protein-GOT MF	Mus-musculus	UniProt-GOA [62]	56, 322	
Protein-GOT CC	Homo-sapiens	UniProt-GOA [62]	65, 295	
Protein-GOT BP	Homo-sapiens	UniProt-GOA [62]	101, 177	
Protein-GOT MF	Homo-sapiens	UniProt-GOA [62]	54, 638	
Protein-gene	SARS-CoV-2	UniProt [47]	18, 387	
Protein-gene	Homo-sapiens	UniProt [47]	195, 659	
Protein-gene	Mus-musculus	UniProt [47]	110, 421	
Anatomy-gene	Homo-sapiens	Hetionet [54]	726, 495	
Gene-pathway	Homo-sapiens	Hetionet [54]	84, 372	
Drug-side effect	Homo-sapiens	Hetionet [54]	138, 944	
Drug-gene	Homo-sapiens	GNBR [53]	80, 803	
DrugBank [44]	24, 801	
IntAct [63]	1, 805	
DGIdb [52]	26, 290	
Hetionet [54]	51, 429	
Bibliography	25, 666	
Disease-gene	Homo-sapiens	GNBR [53]	95, 399	
Hetionet [54]	27, 977	
Bibliography	461	
Drug-disease	Homo-sapiens	Drugbank [44]	4, 968	
GNBR [53]	77, 782	
Hetionet [54]	1, 145	

Table 2 Test average evaluation of the training of the DistMult model

Metrics	Value	
MRR	0.527	
Hits@1	0.399	
Hits@3	0.594	
Hits@10	0.785	
Time	3008,041 s	

Fig. 6 An example of the built knowledge graph by DTIOG that includes roughly 97 edges across 21 types of relationships connecting drugs, diseases, proteins, genes, PPIs for the gene IL10, CSF2, CXCL10, and so on the relation used in this example are from different sources, namely a the DGIDB [52] database (blue color); b the DrugBank database (purple color); c the GNBR [53] database (yellow color); d Hetionet biomedical knowledge (black color); e the STRING database (green color); and f UniProt database (red color)  (color figure online)

Fig. 7 Entity cosine similarity distribution for: a ENZ data, b GPCR data, c IC data

It is worth noting that we compute the PCA [59] in order to reduce the dimensions of each vector, enabling them to have the same shape as the drug and target embedding vectors.

Experimental setup and evaluation metrics

We have applied DTIOG in 9 different modes: DTIOG-RF, DTIOG-DT, DTIOG-MLP, DTIOG-KNeighbors, DTIOG-BaggingClassifier, DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, DTIOG-SGD, and DTIOG-ETC, utilizing the classifiers RF, DT, MLP, K-Neighbors, Bagging Classifier, Gradient Boosting, GaussianNB, SGD, and ETC, respectively. We compared DTIOG versus the pioneering approaches of the literature, namely iGRLDTI [39], DTI-HeNE [38], BLM-NII [60], and ALADIN [37]. It is worth noting that the number of epochs is 10, used by all the DTIOG variants and all their competitors. Table 3 provides an overview of the parameters of the classifiers used in our comparisons. Similar to the DTIOG strategy, the iGRLDTI method involves obtaining drug information by utilizing the RDKit library [45] by converting SMILES representations into molecular fingerprints, and we specifically use the Avalon fingerprint generator to identify distinct fragments in the molecular structure. In the case of protein sequences, we transform them into feature vectors based on the biochemical properties of amino acids. Using a sliding window of size 3, we categorize amino acids into groups such as non-polar, polar neutral, acidic, and basic, thereby converting the sequences into numerical representations.Table 3 The classifier parameters are fixed by the choice from three scenarios responsible for determining the similarity between drugs, proteins, and their embedding vectors

Classifiers	KGE	KGE-ProtBERT	Molecular fingerprint and protein characteristics	
ETC	n-estimators = trees, random-state = 1357	n-estimators = trees, random-state = 1357	n-estimators = trees, random-state = 1357	
DT	random-state = 1357	random-state = 1357	random-state = 1357	
MLP	solver = lbfgs, alpha = 1e−5, hidden-layer-sizes = (5, 2), random-state = 1	solver = lbfgs, alpha = 1e−5, hidden-layer-sizes = (240, 96), random-state = 1	solver = lbfgs, alpha = 1e−5, hidden-layer-sizes = (240, 96), random-state = 1	
SGD	loss = log, penalty = l2, max-iter = 5	loss = log, penalty = l2, max-iter = 2	loss = log, penalty = l2, max-iter = 2	
Gaussian-NB				
Gradient Boosting	n-estimators = 100, learning-rate = 1.0,max-depth = 1, random-state = 0	n-estimators = 100, learning-rate = 1.0,max-depth = 2, random-state = 0	n-estimators = 100, learning-rate = 1.0,max-depth = 2, random-state = 0	
Bagging Classifier	KNeighborsClassifier(), max-samples = 0.5, max-features = 0.5	KNeighborsClassifier(n-neighbors = 1),max-samples = 1, max-features = 1	KNeighborsClassifier(n-neighbors = 1),max-samples = 1, max-features = 1	
K-Neighbors	n-neighbors = 7	n-neighbors = 2	n-neighbors = 2	
RF	n-estimators = trees, n-jobs = 6, criterion = c, class-weight = balanced, random-state = 1357	n-estimators = trees, n-jobs = 6, criterion = c, class-weight = balanced, random-state = 1357	n-estimators = trees, n-jobs = 6, criterion = c, class-weight = balanced, random-state = 1357	

We employ a diverse set of evaluation metrics to provide a holistic assessment of our approach for drug–target interaction prediction. Using a combination of metrics, including AUC, AUPR, ACC, MCC, and the F1, allows us to examine the performance of the model from various angles. These metrics collectively offer insights into different aspects of the prediction, such as the ability to distinguish between positive and negative instances, precision in correctly identifying true positives, and the model’s balance between sensitivity and specificity. By employing this array of metrics, we ensure a well-rounded evaluation that takes into account the intricacies of drug–target interaction prediction. In the process of assessing performance, we document the average scores achieved by each prediction method. The specific definitions of the above mentioned metrics are as follows:7 Precision=TPTP+FP

8 Recall=TPTP+FN

9 ACC=TN+TPFP+TP+FN+TN

10 F1=2·Precision·RecallPrecision+Recall

11 MCC=TP·TN-FP·FN(TP+FP)(TP+FN)(TN+FP)(TN+FN)

Results

Comparison between DTIOG variants focusing on KGE

ENZ dataset using KGE

In Table 4, we find that DTIOG-DT consistently outperforms the competition across various similarity metrics. Notably, when assessed with the Cosine similarity metric, DTIOG-DT exhibits remarkable results with an AUPR that is 0.9% higher (0.976 vs. 0.967), an AUC that is 0.1% higher, an ACC that is 0.3% higher, an MCC that is 1.02% higher, and an F1 that is 0.92% higher than the next best classifier, DTIOG-ETC. This significant performance margin highlights the exceptional predictive capabilities of DTIOG-DT. Similarly, DTIOG-DT excels when evaluated using the Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Jaccard similarity, and Pearson correlation coefficient metrics, consistently achieving superior results compared to the other methods. DTIOG-ETC follows as the second-best classifier, delivering robust results across these similarity metrics, even though it trails slightly behind DTIOG-DT. In contrast, DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD consistently underperform, particularly when assessed using these similarity metrics, exhibiting lower in a diverse set of evaluation metrics values. For instance, DTIOG-GradientBoosting falls behind DTIOG-DT by 47.84% in AUPR, 16.06% in AUC, 9.25% in ACC, 57.20% in MCC, and 55.28% in F1 using Cosine similarity, indicating that these classifiers may not be suitable choices for the GPCR dataset. These findings underscore the importance of classifier selection in DTI prediction, with DTIOG-DT emerging as a top-performing option consistently.Table 4 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the ENZ dataset using KGE

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.963	0.994	0.991	0.958	0.962	
DTIOG-DT	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.972	0.975	
DTIOG-MLP	0.973	0.996	0.980	0.902	0.913	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.973	0.996	0.968	0.869	0.879	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.986	0.998	0.970	0.878	0.887	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.509	0.836	0.902	0.416	0.436	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.586	0.840	0.848	0.452	0.513	
DTIOG-SGD	0.661	0.922	0.921	0.574	0.608	
DTIOG-ETC	0.967	0.995	0.991	0.962	0.966	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.964	0.995	0.991	0.959	0.963	
DTIOG-DT	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.973	0.976	
DTIOG-MLP	0.950	0.992	0.970	0.854	0.871	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.974	0.996	0.970	0.876	0.885	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.986	0.998	0.974	0.890	0.899	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.459	0.808	0.902	0.418	0.434	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.583	0.833	0.831	0.423	0.486	
DTIOG-SGD	0.656	0.922	0.919	0.561	0.595	
DTIOG-ETC	0.967	0.995	0.992	0.963	0.966	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.965	0.995	0.991	0.960	0.964	
DTIOG-DT	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.972	0.975	
DTIOG-MLP	0.952	0.993	0.970	0.855	0.872	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.981	0.997	0.974	0.893	0.902	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.989	0.998	0.976	0.898	0.907	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.612	0.885	0.915	0.526	0.553	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.584	0.838	0.838	0.440	0.502	
DTIOG-SGD	0.662	0.923	0.917	0.554	0.585	
DTIOG-ETC	0.969	0.995	0.992	0.964	0.968	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.962	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.960	
DTIOG-DT	0.975	0.996	0.993	0.971	0.974	
DTIOG-MLP	0.956	0.993	0.971	0.855	0.870	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.963	0.994	0.960	0.844	0.855	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.979	0.997	0.963	0.852	0.862	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.606	0.879	0.914	0.512	0.539	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.569	0.827	0.774	0.371	0.432	
DTIOG-SGD	0.658	0.921	0.921	0.570	0.603	
DTIOG-ETC	0.966	0.995	0.991	0.961	0.965	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.963	0.994	0.991	0.958	0.962	
DTIOG-DT	0.975	0.996	0.994	0.971	0.974	
DTIOG-MLP	0.973	0.996	0.980	0.906	0.917	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.970	0.995	0.962	0.851	0.861	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.985	0.998	0.965	0.860	0.869	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.650	0.900	0.920	0.556	0.583	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.578	0.843	0.855	0.456	0.519	
DTIOG-SGD	0.656	0.923	0.919	0.560	0.594	
DTIOG-ETC	0.967	0.995	0.991	0.962	0.966	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

The GPCR dataset using KGE

In Table 5, we find that DTIOG-DT consistently outperforms the competition across various similarity metrics. Notably, when assessed with the Cosine similarity metric, DTIOG-DT exhibits remarkable results with an AUPR that is 0.61% higher, an AUC that is 0.3% higher, an ACC that is 0.4% higher, an MCC that is 0.83% higher, and an F1 that is 0.72% higher than the next best classifier, DTIOG-ETC. This significant performance margin highlights the exceptional predictive capabilities of DTIOG-DT.Table 5 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the GPCR dataset using KGE

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.951	0.980	0.971	0.931	0.949	
DTIOG-DT	0.968	0.987	0.981	0.955	0.967	
DTIOG-MLP	0.970	0.992	0.977	0.944	0.959	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.949	0.979	0.899	0.792	0.843	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.951	0.984	0.896	0.787	0.839	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.755	0.908	0.855	0.625	0.720	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.655	0.784	0.716	0.405	0.586	
DTIOG-SGD	0.617	0.822	0.775	0.438	0.574	
DTIOG-ETC	0.962	0.984	0.977	0.947	0.960	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.956	0.982	0.974	0.938	0.954	
DTIOG-DT	0.967	0.987	0.981	0.954	0.966	
DTIOG-MLP	0.960	0.990	0.979	0.950	0.963	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.946	0.977	0.901	0.797	0.846	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.947	0.983	0.898	0.790	0.841	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.736	0.888	0.847	0.601	0.700	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.653	0.778	0.709	0.388	0.575	
DTIOG-SGD	0.589	0.811	0.765	0.417	0.555	
DTIOG-ETC	0.964	0.985	0.979	0.949	0.962	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.953	0.980	0.972	0.933	0.951	
DTIOG-DT	0.966	0.986	0.980	0.952	0.965	
DTIOG-MLP	0.969	0.992	0.980	0.952	0.964	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.963	0.985	0.908	0.808	0.855	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.958	0.986	0.898	0.790	0.841	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.762	0.909	0.862	0.644	0.736	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.646	0.781	0.719	0.418	0.594	
DTIOG-SGD	0.599	0.817	0.777	0.435	0.570	
DTIOG-ETC	0.966	0.986	0.980	0.952	0.965	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.952	0.980	0.971	0.932	0.950	
DTIOG-DT	0.966	0.986	0.980	0.953	0.965	
DTIOG-MLP	0.936	0.982	0.960	0.906	0.931	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.957	0.983	0.907	0.801	0.844	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.971	0.990	0.911	0.813	0.859	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.779	0.920	0.868	0.660	0.748	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.654	0.782	0.726	0.423	0.597	
DTIOG-SGD	0.627	0.830	0.783	0.443	0.553	
DTIOG-ETC	0.961	0.984	0.977	0.945	0.959	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.952	0.980	0.971	0.933	0.950	
DTIOG-DT	0.965	0.986	0.980	0.951	0.964	
DTIOG-MLP	0.965	0.991	0.980	0.951	0.964	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.958	0.983	0.902	0.797	0.847	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.957	0.986	0.892	0.780	0.834	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.754	0.907	0.856	0.628	0.723	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.648	0.783	0.725	0.414	0.592	
DTIOG-SGD	0.597	0.815	0.775	0.424	0.556	
DTIOG-ETC	0.962	0.985	0.978	0.947	0.961	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

Similarly, DTIOG-DT consistently does better than the other methods when tested using the Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Jaccard similarity, and Pearson correlation coefficient metrics. DTIOG-ETC follows as the second-best classifier, delivering robust results across these similarity metrics, although it trails slightly behind DTIOG-DT.

On the other hand, DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD always do worse, especially when these similarity metrics are used to measure performance, showing lower values in a diverse set of evaluation metrics. For instance, DTIOG-GradientBoosting falls behind DTIOG-DT by 22% in AUPR, 8% in AUC, 12.84% in ACC, 34.55% in MCC, and 25.54% in F1 using Cosine similarity, indicating that these classifiers may not be suitable choices for the GPCR dataset.

The IC dataset using KGE

In Table 6, we find that DTIOG-DT consistently outperforms the competition across various similarity metrics. The Cosine similarity metric shows that DTIOG-DT does much better than the next best classifier, DTIOG-ETC. It has an AUPR that is 0.2% higher, an AUC that is 0.2% higher, an ACC that is 0.2% higher, an MCC that is 0.41% higher, and an F1 that is 0.2% higher. This significant performance margin highlights the exceptional predictive capabilities of DTIOG-DT. The Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Jaccard similarity, and Pearson correlation coefficient metrics also show that DTIOG-DT is very good. It consistently achieves superior results compared to the other methods, demonstrating higher values in a diverse set of evaluation metrics. DTIOG-ETC follows as the second-best classifier, delivering robust results across these similarity metrics, although it trails slightly behind DTIOG-DT. On the other hand, DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD always do worse, especially when these similarity metrics are used to measure them. For instance, DTIOG-GradientBoosting falls behind DTIOG-DT by 14.19% in AUPR, 6.18% in AUC, 11.91% in ACC, 28.98% in MCC, and 20.08% in F1 using Cosine similarity, indicating that these classifiers may not be suitable choices for the IC dataset.Table 6 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the IC dataset using KGE

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.960	0.980	0.973	0.941	0.958	
DTIOG-DT	0.972	0.987	0.982	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-MLP	0.988	0.995	0.981	0.958	0.971	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.987	0.994	0.955	0.904	0.932	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.989	0.996	0.951	0.896	0.9272	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.834	0.926	0.865	0.681	0.776	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.757	0.854	0.803	0.547	0.6914	
DTIOG-SGD	0.767	0.895	0.828	0.597	0.715	
DTIOG-ETC	0.970	0.985	0.980	0.955	0.969	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.962	0.981	0.974	0.944	0.960	
DTIOG-DT	0.977	0.989	0.985	0.967	0.977	
DTIOG-MLP	0.962	0.984	0.952	0.887	0.920	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.986	0.993	0.955	0.904	0.932	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.988	0.995	0.953	0.900	0.929	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.831	0.927	0.872	0.697	0.787	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.757	0.855	0.798	0.543	0.690	
DTIOG-SGD	0.753	0.885	0.813	0.552	0.669	
DTIOG-ETC	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.961	0.973	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.962	0.982	0.975	0.944	0.961	
DTIOG-DT	0.976	0.988	0.984	0.965	0.975	
DTIOG-MLP	0.983	0.993	0.971	0.936	0.955	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.985	0.993	0.957	0.908	0.935	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.988	0.995	0.954	0.902	0.931	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.827	0.924	0.871	0.694	0.785	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.771	0.863	0.801	0.555	0.699	
DTIOG-SGD	0.752	0.883	0.815	0.560	0.683	
DTIOG-ETC	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.960	0.972	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.958	0.979	0.972	0.938	0.956	
DTIOG-DT	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.961	0.973	
DTIOG-MLP	0.981	0.993	0.980	0.955	0.969	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.983	0.992	0.940	0.874	0.911	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.981	0.992	0.931	0.858	0.900	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.834	0.928	0.867	0.685	0.778	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.754	0.848	0.809	0.555	0.693	
DTIOG-SGD	0.779	0.899	0.828	0.592	0.705	
DTIOG-ETC	0.967	0.984	0.978	0.951	0.966	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.957	0.979	0.971	0.937	0.9560	
DTIOG-DT	0.972	0.986	0.982	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-MLP	0.987	0.995	0.978	0.951	0.966	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.984	0.992	0.945	0.883	0.918	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.988	0.995	0.940	0.875	0.912	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.837	0.927	0.866	0.682	0.776	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.757	0.849	0.799	0.542	0.689	
DTIOG-SGD	0.770	0.894	0.824	0.601	0.724	
DTIOG-ETC	0.968	0.985	0.979	0.953	0.967	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

Comparison between DTIOG variants focused on KGE and ProtBERT

The ENZ dataset using ProtBERT

Table 7 depicts the performance of DTIOG variants using ProtBERT and the ENZ dataset. DTIOG-DT consistently performs better on a number of similarity metrics. Most notably, when appraised using the Cosine similarity metric, DTIOG-DT demonstrates exceptional results, with an AUPR that surpasses the closest competitor by 0.72%, an AUC that exceeds by 0.1%, an ACC that outperforms by 0.2%, an MCC that excels by 0.83%, and an F1 score that excels by 0.72%. This substantial performance differential underscores the outstanding predictive capabilities of DTIOG-DT.Table 7 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the ENZ dataset using ProtBERT

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.950	0.992	0.987	0.942	0.948	
DTIOG-DT	0.963	0.994	0.990	0.957	0.961	
DTIOG-MLP	0.701	0.928	0.924	0.590	0.621	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.968	0.995	0.968	0.870	0.879	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.980	0.997	0.978	0.906	0.914	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.455	0.808	0.898	0.384	0.402	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.496	0.532	0.237	0.047	0.214	
DTIOG-SGD	0.566	0.881	0.902	0.411	0.425	
DTIOG-ETC	0.956	0.993	0.988	0.949	0.954	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.958	0.994	0.989	0.952	0.956	
DTIOG-DT	0.971	0.996	0.993	0.967	0.970	
DTIOG-MLP	0.944	0.991	0.968	0.844	0.861	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.972	0.996	0.971	0.882	0.891	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.978	0.992	0.971	0.898	0.906	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.644	0.908	0.918	0.548	0.578	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.425	0.711	0.494	0.158	0.264	
DTIOG-SGD	0.652	0.920	0.916	0.533	0.562	
DTIOG-ETC	0.963	0.994	0.990	0.957	0.962	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.959	0.994	0.989	0.953	0.958	
DTIOG-DT	0.973	0.996	0.993	0.969	0.972	
DTIOG-MLP	0.964	0.995	0.975	0.882	0.893	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.964	0.995	0.966	0.864	0.873	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.976	0.997	0.973	0.889	0.898	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.380	0.698	0.895	0.311	0.278	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.517	0.796	0.831	0.419	0.483	
DTIOG-SGD	0.654	0.923	0.919	0.564	0.599	
DTIOG-ETC	0.961	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.960	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.943	0.991	0.985	0.933	0.939	
DTIOG-DT	0.962	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.961	
DTIOG-MLP	0.701	0.903	0.925	0.574	0.586	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.969	0.995	0.970	0.877	0.886	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.980	0.997	0.977	0.902	0.910	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.585	0.869	0.910	0.473	0.489	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.490	0.539	0.254	0.045	0.213	
DTIOG-SGD	0.579	0.872	0.906	0.434	0.440	
DTIOG-ETC	0.954	0.993	0.988	0.946	0.951	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.950	0.992	0.987	0.942	0.947	
DTIOG-DT	0.962	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.961	
DTIOG-MLP	0.709	0.921	0.925	0.587	0.612	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.967	0.995	0.968	0.869	0.879	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.980	0.997	0.978	0.904	0.912	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.363	0.708	0.893	0.319	0.320	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.493	0.528	0.235	0.038	0.211	
DTIOG-SGD	0.567	0.880	0.901	0.422	0.446	
DTIOG-ETC	0.954	0.993	0.988	0.947	0.952	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

Using the Euclidean distance, Manhattan distance, Jaccard similarity, and Pearson correlation coefficient metrics, DTIOG-DT always does better than other methods. DTIOG-ETC emerges as the second-best classifier, offering robust performance across these similarity metrics, albeit slightly trailing DTIOG-DT.

DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD, on the other hand, always do worse, especially when tested with these similarity metrics, giving lower values in a diverse set of evaluation metrics. For example, when assessed using the Cosine similarity, DTIOG-GradientBoosting lags behind DTIOGDT by 52.75% in AUPR, 18.71% in AUC, 9.29% in ACC, 59.87% in MCC, and 58.16% in F1. These results suggest that these classifiers may not be suitable choices for the ENZ dataset. The results make it clear how important it is to choose the right classifier for DTI prediction, with DTIOG-DT consistently coming out on top.

IC dataset using ProtBERT

As Table 8 depicts, DTIOG-DT consistently emerges as the top-performing classifier, showcasing its exceptional predictive capabilities. For instance, with the Cosine similarity metric, DTIOG-DT outperforms competitors, such as DTIOGETC, by 0.41% in AUPR, 0.2% in AUC, 0.2% in ACC, 0.63% in MCC, and 0.31% in F1. This trend holds true across other similarity metrics, underscoring DTIOG-DT’s robustness in a diverse set of evaluation metrics. As an alternative, DTIOG-ETC often comes in second place among classifiers, especially when it comes to Cosine similarity, Jaccard similarity, and Euclidean distance. The percentage differences between these tests and DTIOG-DT are significant, but they are also within a reasonable range. They are usually between 0.4% and 0.6% for AUPR, between 0.2% and 0.3% for AUC, between 0.3% and 0.4% for ACC, between 0.6% and 1.04% for MCC, and between 0.5% and 0.7% for F1. On the other side, it is worth mentioning that DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD are not very good at predicting across a number of similarity metrics. Compared to DTIOG-DT, they also have large negative percentage differences. For example, when using the Cosine similarity metric, DTIOG-GradientBoosting underperforms DTIOGDT by 19.58% in AUPR, 10.78% in AUC, 15.67% in ACC, 39.97% in MCC, and 28.76% in F1. This indicates that these classifiers may not be suitable choices for this particular task across the diverse set of evaluation metrics.Table 8 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the IC dataset using ProtBERT

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.951	0.976	0.966	0.927	0.949	
DTIOG-DT	0.965	0.983	0.976	0.948	0.963	
DTIOG-MLP	0.926	0.971	0.917	0.809	0.869	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.974	0.987	0.932	0.860	0.901	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.981	0.993	0.941	0.878	0.913	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.776	0.877	0.823	0.569	0.686	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.659	0.779	0.785	0.458	0.523	
DTIOG-SGD	0.687	0.816	0.775	0.451	0.600	
DTIOG-ETC	0.961	0.981	0.974	0.942	0.960	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.956	0.978	0.970	0.934	0.954	
DTIOG-DT	0.972	0.986	0.981	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-MLP	0.997	0.999	0.995	0.988	0.992	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.971	0.986	0.971	0.936	0.955	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.654	0.500	0.691	0.000	0.000	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.889	0.961	0.913	0.797	0.860	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.713	0.817	0.784	0.492	0.647	
DTIOG-SGD	0.745	0.877	0.816	0.566	0.696	
DTIOG-ETC	0.966	0.983	0.977	0.949	0.964	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.957	0.979	0.971	0.936	0.955	
DTIOG-DT	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.961	0.972	
DTIOG-MLP	0.997	0.999	0.995	0.989	0.992	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.977	0.989	0.960	0.914	0.940	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.981	0.993	0.965	0.924	0.947	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.809	0.916	0.859	0.664	0.762	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.694	0.800	0.780	0.471	0.622	
DTIOG-SGD	0.749	0.875	0.813	0.561	0.692	
DTIOG-ETC	0.970	0.985	0.980	0.956	0.969	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.954	0.977	0.969	0.932	0.952	
DTIOG-DT	0.969	0.985	0.979	0.954	0.968	
DTIOG-MLP	0.988	0.995	0.976	0.945	0.962	
DTIO-KNeighbors	0.979	0.990	0.948	0.889	0.922	
DTIOGBaggingClassifier	0.991	0.996	0.960	0.913	0.939	
DTIO-GradientBoosting	0.802	0.895	0.845	0.624	0.727	
DTIO-GaussianNB	0.663	0.783	0.776	0.436	0.477	
DTIO-SGD	0.722	0.846	0.800	0.518	0.648	
DTIOG-ETC	0.965	0.983	0.976	0.948	0.963	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.955	0.978	0.970	0.933	0.953	
DTIOG-DT	0.968	0.985	0.979	0.953	0.967	
DTIOG-MLP	0.992	0.997	0.991	0.980	0.986	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.982	0.991	0.955	0.904	0.932	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.991	0.996	0.966	0.926	0.948	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.806	0.900	0.850	0.639	0.741	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.672	0.791	0.785	0.458	0.523	
DTIOG-SGD	0.738	0.858	0.810	0.541	0.669	
DTIOG-ETC	0.968	0.984	0.979	0.953	0.967	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

The GPCR dataset using ProtBERT

In Table 9, when evaluating the performance of various classifiers on the GPCR dataset using the various similarity metrics, DTIOG-ETC emerges as the top performer, surpassing its competitors by significant percentages. DTIOG-DT achieves an AUPR that is 0.3% lower, an AUC that is 0.2% lower, an ACC that is 0.3% lower, an MCC that is 0.53% lower, and an F1 that is 0.42% lower than the first best classifier, DTIOG-ETC. This substantial performance margin underscores the exceptional predictive capabilities of DTIOG-ETC.Table 9 Performance comparison of DTIOG variants on the GPCR dataset using ProtBERT

Approaches	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
Cosine similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.930	0.969	0.956	0.899	0.925	
DTIOG-DT	0.948	0.978	0.968	0.926	0.945	
DTIOG-MLP	0.836	0.936	0.874	0.673	0.755	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.946	0.977	0.939	0.865	0.899	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.635	0.500	0.683	0.000	0.042	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.792	0.923	0.872	0.669	0.755	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.431	0.628	0.439	0.108	0.437	
DTIOG-SGD	0.454	0.691	0.720	0.274	0.443	
DTIOG-ETC	0.951	0.980	0.971	0.931	0.949	
Euclidean distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.950	0.979	0.970	0.930	0.948	
DTIOG-DT	0.963	0.985	0.978	0.948	0.961	
DTIOG-MLP	0.995	0.998	0.993	0.983	0.987	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.961	0.984	0.959	0.905	0.930	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.635	0.500	0.729	0.000	0.000	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.894	0.973	0.936	0.842	0.885	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.597	0.772	0.752	0.436	0.604	
DTIOG-SGD	0.594	0.805	0.784	0.437	0.572	
DTIOG-ETC	0.957	0.982	0.974	0.940	0.955	
Manhattan distance	
DTIOG-RF	0.950	0.979	0.970	0.930	0.948	
DTIOG-DT	0.959	0.983	0.976	0.943	0.958	
DTIOG-MLP	0.994	0.998	0.993	0.983	0.987	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.959	0.983	0.953	0.894	0.921	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.635	0.500	0.683	0.000	0.042	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.872	0.966	0.931	0.828	0.875	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.586	0.775	0.755	0.436	0.602	
DTIOG-SGD	0.591	0.803	0.781	0.426	0.568	
DTIOG-ETC	0.960	0.983	0.976	0.944	0.958	
Jaccard similarity	
DTIOG-RF	0.938	0.974	0.962	0.912	0.934	
DTIOG-DT	0.958	0.983	0.975	0.941	0.956	
DTIOG-MLP	0.984	0.996	0.989	0.974	0.981	
DTIO-KNeighbors	0.968	0.987	0.965	0.918	0.939	
DTIOGBaggingClassifier	0.635	0.500	0.729	0.000	0.000	
DTIO-GradientBoosting	0.880	0.969	0.923	0.808	0.861	
DTIO-GaussianNB	0.473	0.660	0.471	0.138	0.448	
DTIO-SGD	0.560	0.780	0.775	0.400	0.536	
DTIOG-ETC	0.954	0.981	0.972	0.934	0.951	
Pearson correlation coefficient	
DTIOG-RF	0.940	0.975	0.963	0.915	0.937	
DTIOG-DT	0.956	0.982	0.974	0.938	0.954	
DTIOG-MLP	0.987	0.996	0.990	0.975	0.981	
DTIOG-KNeighbors	0.972	0.989	0.961	0.910	0.933	
DTIOG-BaggingClassifier	0.635	0.500	0.729	0.000	0.000	
DTIOG-GradientBoosting	0.898	0.975	0.934	0.838	0.882	
DTIOG-GaussianNB	0.497	0.676	0.527	0.189	0.468	
DTIOG-SGD	0.587	0.797	0.780	0.419	0.554	
DTIOG-ETC	0.958	0.983	0.975	0.940	0.956	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

The best classifier, DTIOG-ETC, comes in front with strong results: its AUPR is 0.3% higher, its AUC is 0.2% higher, its ACC is 0.3% higher, its MCC is 0.53% higher, and its F1 is 0.42% higher than DTIOGDT. Despite slightly higher values, DTIOG-ETC still demonstrates strong predictive performance, making it a reliable primary choice among the classifiers assessed in this dataset.

However, DTIOG-GradientBoosting, DTIOG-GaussianNB, and DTIOG-SGD consistently underperform, particularly when assessed with the various similarity metrics, exhibiting lower values in the diverse set of evaluation metrics. For instance, DTIOG-GradientBoosting falls behind DTIOG-DT by 16.45% in AUPR and 5.61% in AUC using Cosine similarity. These classifiers may not be suitable choices for the GPCR dataset, and these findings underscore the significance of classifier selection in predictive performance assessment.

Comparison of DTIOG versus other DTI competitor prediction methods

To see how well the DTIOG stacks up against alternative approaches in Table 10, we chose the DTIOG-DT as it consistently shows itself to be the best classifier among the different versions of DTIOG. We have applied DTIOG-DT in three different modes, depending on the contextual and local strategies. DTIOG-DT-KGE utilizes KGE for drugs and targets; DTIOG-DT-PRTB employs KGE for drugs and ProtBERT for targets in the contextual strategy. DTIOG-DT-FP figures out molecular fingerprints for drugs as part of the local strategy, and for proteins, sequence characteristics are used. Additionally, for each submode, various similarity metrics were taken into consideration. In this order, these groups used Cosine similarity, Euclidian distance, Manhattan distance, Jaccard similarity, and Pearson correlation, named as DTIOG-DT-KGE-COS, DTIOG-DT-KGE-ED, DTIOG-DT-KGE-MD, DTIOG-DT-KGE-JCC, and DTIOG-DT-KGE-PCC, respectively.Table 10 Comparison of DTIOG variants versus other DTI competitor prediction methods

Classifiers	AUPR	AUC	ACC	MCC	F1	
GPCR	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-COS	0.948	0.978	0.968	0.926	0.945	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-ED	0.963	0.985	0.978	0.948	0.961	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-MD	0.959	0.983	0.976	0.943	0.958	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-JCC	0.958	0.983	0.975	0.941	0.956	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-PCC	0.956	0.982	0.974	0.938	0.954	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-COS	0.968	0.987	0.981	0.955	0.967	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-ED	0.967	0.987	0.981	0.954	0.966	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-MD	0.966	0.986	0.980	0.952	0.965	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-JCC	0.966	0.986	0.980	0.953	0.965	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-PCC	0.965	0.986	0.980	0.951	0.964	
DTIOG-DT-FP-COS	0.953	0.980	0.971	0.933	0.950	
DTIOG-DT-FP-ED	0.951	0.980	0.971	0.931	0.949	
DTIOG-DT-FP-MD	0.953	0.981	0.972	0.934	0.951	
DTIOG-DT-FP-JCC	0.954	0.981	0.972	0.933	0.951	
DTIOG-DT-FP-PCC	0.957	0.982	0.974	0.940	0.955	
iGRLDTI	0.954	0.979	0.944	0.850	0.885	
DTI-HeNE	0.948	0.945	0.972	0.923	0.939	
ALADIN	0.516	0.795	0.970	0.381	0.298	
BLM-NII	0.476	0.834	0.970	0.297	0.189	
IC	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-COS	0.965	0.983	0.976	0.948	0.963	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-ED	0.972	0.986	0.981	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-MD	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.961	0.972	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-JCC	0.969	0.985	0.979	0.954	0.968	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-PCC	0.968	0.985	0.979	0.953	0.967	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-COS	0.972	0.987	0.982	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-ED	0.977	0.989	0.985	0.967	0.977	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-MD	0.976	0.988	0.984	0.965	0.975	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-JCC	0.973	0.987	0.982	0.961	0.973	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-PCC	0.972	0.986	0.982	0.959	0.971	
DTIOG-DT-FP-COS	0.959	0.980	0.973	0.940	0.958	
DTIOG-DT-FP-ED	0.962	0.981	0.974	0.944	0.960	
DTIOG-DT-FP-MD	0.961	0.981	0.973	0.942	0.959	
DTIOG-DT-FP-JCC	0.960	0.981	0.973	0.941	0.959	
DTIOG-DT-FP-PCC	0.962	0.982	0.975	0.944	0.961	
iGRLDTI	0.973	0.980	0.931	0.861	0.921	
DTI-HeNE	0.981	0.978	0.986	0.964	0.973	
ALADIN	0.803	0.913	0.965	0.757	0.751	
BLM-NII	0.786	0.930	0.965	0.763	0.762	
ENZ	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-COS	0.963	0.994	0.990	0.957	0.961	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-ED	0.971	0.996	0.993	0.967	0.970	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-MD	0.973	0.996	0.993	0.969	0.972	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-JCC	0.962	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.961	
DTIOG-DT-PRTB-PCC	0.962	0.994	0.990	0.956	0.961	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-COS	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.972	0.975	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-ED	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.973	0.976	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-MD	0.976	0.996	0.994	0.972	0.975	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-JCC	0.975	0.996	0.993	0.971	0.974	
DTIOG-DT-KGE-PCC	0.975	0.996	0.994	0.971	0.974	
DTIOG-DT-FP-COS	0.954	0.993	0.988	0.947	0.952	
DTIOG-DT-FP-ED	0.951	0.992	0.987	0.943	0.948	
DTIOG-DT-FP-MD	0.956	0.993	0.989	0.949	0.954	
DTIOG-DT-FP-JCC	0.955	0.993	0.988	0.948	0.953	
DTIOG-DT-FP-PCC	0.955	0.993	0.988	0.948	0.953	
iGRLDTI	0.949	0.940	0.885	0.760	0.906	
DTI-HeNE	0.963	0.962	0.992	0.954	0.957	
ALADIN	0.757	0.896	0.990	0.665	0.620	
BLM-NII	0.769	0.925	0.990	0.702	0.666	
The best results are indicated in bold concerning each row

Table 10 depicts the performance of various DTIs prediction methods using diverse evaluation metrics across three DTI classes: GPCR, IC, and ENZ. The evaluated prediction methods include different variants of DTIOG, iGRLDTI, DTI-HeNE, ALADIN, and BLM-NII. In all three DTI classes, DTIOG variants consistently do better than iGRLDTI, DTI-HeNE, ALADIN, and BLM-NII in a number of evaluation metrics. Notably, DTIOG variants that use KGE have very good predictive power, as shown by their high AUPR scores. In particular, DTIOG-DT-KGE-COS, DTIOG-DT-KGE-ED, DTIOG-DT-KGE-MD, and DTIOG-DT-KGE-JCC excel at achieving the highest AUPR scores across various classes. To sum up, DTIOG is the best way to predict DTI because it can be used in a number of different ways, including using latent representations, feature representations of drugs and proteins, and different similarity metrics. Variants that use KGE work especially well, showing how important it is to represent DTIs in a latent space. Despite being a respectable method, iGRLDTI fails to outperform DTIOG across most metrics, underscoring the power of latent representation-based approaches. If we compare ALADIN and BLM-NII to DTIOG and other top methods, they do not do nearly as well. This shows how important it is to combine knowledge and latent representations for accurate DTI prediction.

DTIOG does much better than its competitors because it uses KGE to show complicated connections in KGs, which makes it better at modeling complicated drug-protein interactions. Adding to that, the novel approach, can extract features for both drugs and proteins. This gives a more complete picture of DTIs by looking at structural and sequential features.

Case study

The aim of our case study is to evaluate the practical efficacy of the DTIOG-BaggingClassifier variant using the KGE in identifying unknown DTIs. This classifier demonstrated strong performance during the training process, as indicated in Tables 4, 5, 6, and 7, providing well-validated predictions in terms of AUPR or AUC metrics.

Concerning prediction scores, the top 10 pairs in the testing dataset were selected for further validation. Each pair of drug and target was then verified against the latest versions of the DrugBank [44], CTD [61], KEGG [64] and ChEMBL [65] databases. These verified drug–target pairs did not exist in KG input during the embedding process or the training of the DTIOG variants. Instead, they were later added to the latest version of databases. Additionally, the DTIs for the different datasets (i.e., ENZ, GPCR, and IC datasets) were collected before 2008 [58], allowing verification using newly updated DTIs in the aforementioned databases.

Tables 11, 12, and 13 present the top 10 pairs of drugs and targets from the ENZ, GPCR, and IC datasets, respectively, with the highest prediction scores. Following a meticulous literature review of the predicted DTIs for the ENZ dataset, five of them were confirmed by the latest versions of the DrugBank, KEGG, CTD, or ChEMBL databases. Interestingly, in the GPCR dataset, the DTIOG-BaggingClassifier performed well by predicting 10 confirmed DTIs validated by DrugBank or KEGG databases. On the other hand, for the IC dataset, our approach successfully predicted six confirmed DTIs validated by DrugBank or KEGG databases.Table 11 Top 10 predicted novel interactions in the ENZ dataset performed by DTIOG-BaggingClassifier, with supporting evidence from external databases

Rank	Drugbank ID	Drug name	Uniprot ID	Target name	Evidence	
1	DB00586	Diclofenac	P05164	Myeloperoxidase	CTD	
2	DB00312	Pentobarbital	P12931	Proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src	KEGG	
3	DB00201	Caffeine	P20853	Cytochrome P450 2A7	None	
4	DB00312	Pentobarbital	P06276	Cholinesterase	None	
5	DB00201	Caffeine	P14060	3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase/Delta 5–>4-isomerase type 1	CTD	
6	DB00201	Caffeine	Q13946	High affinity cAMP-specific 3’,5’-cyclic phosphodiesterase 7A	DrugBank	
7	DB00564	Carbamazepine	Q92813	Type II iodothyronine deiodinase	None	
8	DB01907	NADH	O94788	Retinal dehydrogenase 2	None	
9	DB00432	Trifluridine	Q92813	Type II iodothyronine deiodinase	None	
10	DB01115	Nifedipine	P11712	Cytochrome P450 2C9	DrugBank, ChEMBL	

Table 12 Top 10 predicted novel interactions in the GPCR dataset performed by DTIOG-BaggingClassifier, with supporting evidence from external databases

Rank	Drugbank ID	Drug name	Uniprot ID	Target name	Evidence	
1	DB00810	Biperiden	P20309	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3	KEGG	
2	DB00726	Trimipramine	P08912	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M5	DrugBank	
3	DB00850	Perphenazine	P21918	D(1B) dopamine receptor	KEGG	
4	DB00568	Cinnarizine	P08173	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M4	DrugBank, KEGG	
5	DB00726	Trimipramine	P28223	5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 2A	DrugBank, KEGG	
6	DB00568	Cinnarizine	P20309	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3	DrugBank, KEGG	
7	DB00462	Methscopolamine bromide	P20309	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3	DrugBank, KEGG	
8	DB01239	Chlorprothixene	P20309	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3	DrugBank, KEGG	
9	DB00933	Mesoridazine	P20309	Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M3	KEGG	
10	DB00454	Meperidine	Q9H3N8	Histamine H4 receptor	KEGG	

Table 13 Top 10 predicted novel interactions in the IC dataset performed by DTIOG-BaggingClassifier, with supporting evidence from external databases

Rank	Drugbank ID	Drug name	Uniprot ID	Target name	Evidence	
1	DB00653	Magnesium sulfate	Q01668	Voltage-dependent L-type calcium channel subunit alpha-1D	DrugBank	
2	DB00349	Clobazam	P47870	Gamma-aminobutyric acid receptor subunit beta-2	DrugBank, KEGG	
3	DB00818	Propofol	O75311	Glycine receptor subunit alpha-3	KEGG	
4	DB01122	Ambenonium	P46098	5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 3A	None	
5	DB01239	Chlorprothixene	Q92952	Small conductance calcium-activated potassium channel protein 1	None	
6	DB00312	Pentobarbital	Q15878	Voltage-dependent R-type calcium channel subunit alpha-1E	None	
7	DB00829	Diazepam	O75311	Glycine receptor subunit alpha-3	KEGG	
8	DB00653	Magnesium sulfate	Q00975	Voltage-dependent N-type calcium channel subunit alpha-1B	None	
9	DB00740	Riluzole	Q13002	Glutamate receptor ionotropic, kainate 2	KEGG	
10	DB00949	Felbamate	O75311	Glycine receptor subunit alpha-3	KEGG	

Regarding the prediction results, we find that the DTIOG-BaggingClassifier could predict validated DTIs, most of which are related to COVID-19, such as the predicted interaction between the drug Pentobarbital (i.e., DB00312) and the target Proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src (i.e., P12931) (cf. Table 11). Barbiturate drugs like pentobarbital are mostly used as sedatives, hypnotics, or anesthetics. They work on the central nervous system by increasing the calming effects of the neurotransmitter gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) [66]. The proto-oncogene tyrosine-protein kinase Src target is a member of the tyrosine-protein kinase class, playing a pivotal role in cell signaling and regulation. While these kinases are vital for normal cellular processes, mutations or overexpression can render them oncogenic, thereby contributing to cancer development.

Furthermore, our approach has identified a drug–target interaction involving Caffeine (DB00201) and 3 beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase/Delta 5–>4-isomerase type 1 (P14060) (cf. Table 11). Many studies, including [67–69], have shown that caffeine can effectively reduce inflammation and change the way the immune system works. In the airway smooth muscle, it exerts bronchodilator effects primarily through its role as a phosphodiesterase inhibitor and adenosine receptor antagonist. On the other hand, the enzyme P14060, encoded by the gene HSD3B1, plays a vital role in the biosynthesis of steroid hormones. Specifically, it is instrumental in converting pregnenolone to progesterone and actively contributes to the production of diverse steroid hormones. Its significance extends to the synthesis of various steroid hormones, particularly those crucial for the reproductive system and stress response.

Additionally, the DTIOG variant has the capability to predict an interaction between Nifedipine (DB01115) and the target Cytochrome P450 2C9 (P11712) (cf. Table 11). Nifedipine is a calcium channel blocker that is mostly used to treat angina and high blood pressure. It works by stopping calcium ions from entering the heart and smooth muscle cells, which opens up blood vessels and lowers the heart’s workload. Nifedipine could potentially serve as a therapeutic molecule for managing the pathophysiological conditions of the lungs in severe COVID-19 patients [70, 71]. Cytochrome P450 2C9 (CYP2C9), a member of the cytochrome P450 enzyme family, plays a crucial role in drug metabolism. Predominantly located in the liver, CYP2C9 is responsible for metabolizing a wide range of drugs, including Nifedipine. The interaction between Nifedipine and CYP2C9 involves the enzyme’s function in breaking down the drug, thereby influencing its pharmacokinetics.

In particular, we notice that DTIOG successfully identifies the interaction between the drug Cinnarizine (DB00568) and the target protein Muscarinic acetylcholine receptor M4 (P08173) (cf. Table 12). Cinnarizine has demonstrated positive outcomes in patients with COVID-19-associated CLLs, likely owing to its antihistaminic and calcium channel-blocking properties [72]. On the other hand, P08173 is a G-protein-coupled receptor activated by the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, predominantly located in the central nervous system. Upon activation, it can modulate various physiological processes.

A new interaction has been found between the drug magnesium sulfate (DB00653) and the target protein voltage-dependent L-type calcium channel subunit alpha-1D (Q01668) (cf. Table 13). There are several ways that magnesium sulfate protects organs and tissues from damage. These include reducing inflammation, fighting free radicals, and keeping the immune system in check [73, 74]. Q01668 is a protein intricately involved in the regulation of calcium ion flow across cell membranes. In addition, an interaction has been observed between Propofol (DB00818) and the target Glycine receptor subunit alpha-3 (O75311) (cf. Table 13). Propofol is a potent intravenous anesthetic commonly used for the induction and maintenance of general anesthesia. Hypertriglyceridemia frequently occurs in COVID-19 patients receiving propofol, but it does not lead to acute pancreatitis. On the other hand, O75311 is a component of the glycine receptor, a ligand-gated ion channel widely distributed in the central nervous system. It plays a crucial role in mediating inhibitory neurotransmission, particularly in the spinal cord and brainstem.

Therefore, DTIOG proves to be a valuable tool for uncovering new drug–target interactions, particularly in cases where drugs are associated with COVID-19. This guess comes from adding to the KG a list of genes (e.g., CCL2, TNF, and IL6), drugs (e.g., Ruxolitinib, Choline, Chloroquine, and Baricitinib), and gene ontology terms (e.g., cell proliferation and response to oxidative stress) that are linked to COVID-19 from the CTD database [61]. Additionally, we compute all interactions between SARS-CoV-2 and Homo sapiens proteins. Moreover, we annotate each SARS-CoV-2 protein with its gene ontology terms.

Discussion

The approach employed in our study utilizes the interconnected network of drug–target relationships within the KG to generate precise predictions pertaining to potential DTIs. The graph facilitates the analysis of direct interactions and the investigation of indirect associations. For example, pharmaceutical substances have the ability to selectively bind to proteins that are part of the same biological pathway or possess similar molecular structures. This characteristic enhances the probability of interaction between the drugs and their target proteins. Due to the extensive network of connections within the KG, our approach is capable of leveraging the comprehensive knowledge repository to accurately forecast potential interactions between a drug and a target.

Various types of information have been extracted from the knowledge graph, encompassing drug and target embedding vectors as well as two similarity matrices: drug–drug and target–target. Our methodology involves addressing these constituent elements separately, thereby facilitating a more focused examination of the distinct attributes and interconnections of each entity. By examining the embeddings of drugs and targets, as well as their respective similarity matrices, it becomes more feasible to identify underlying associations and potential interactions. Furthermore, our methodology employs various representations and similarity matrices to effectively capture the inherent properties and specific associations between drugs and targets. This facilitates the comprehension of the predictions. The utilization of this dual approach allows researchers to gain a comprehensive understanding of the various factors that influence DTIs.

Utilizing drug and target embeddings in conjunction with drug–drug and target–target similarity matrices constitutes a viable approach for predicting the interaction between a drug and its target. These methodologies offer a more intricate comprehension of drugs and their intended targets, facilitate the detection of hidden associations, and augment the comprehensibility of predictions. Consequently, they contribute to the progression of our understanding in the realm of pharmaceutical exploration and advancement. The primary strength of our methodology resides in its capacity to integrate pre-existing high-order proximity data regarding drugs and targets, resulting in representations of drug–target pairs. Additionally, our approach offers the flexibility to modify the length of these representations in order to fulfill specific task demands. The utilization of an integration-based algorithm as the core method for processing the heterogeneous DTIs network leads to these advantages.

Using much more information about similar things, the principle mentioned earlier can help predict unknown DTIs more purposefully and directly, reducing the likelihood of making mistakes. Nevertheless, this approach has the disadvantage of narrowing down the search space for novel DTIs. Suppose the similarity between the nodes of a particular drug–target pair and other nodes in the dataset is relatively low. In that case, the probability of predicting a potential interaction between them is reduced, even if such an association exists.

To overcome this limitation, we intend to investigate how to extend our method functionally and assign greater attention to certain drugs with lower similarity to other drugs that still warrant further analysis. This course of action is expected to broaden the range of potential DTIs that our method can uncover. Furthermore, our proposed methodology employs a sequential transductive learning framework for the prediction of DTIs. This approach enhances comprehensibility as each step within the workflow possesses a distinct and unambiguous interpretation. Nevertheless, the current transductive-style operation employed by our method results in increased computational expenses in comparison to inductive learning methods.

Inductive learning techniques exhibit no specific constraints regarding the dataset about fixed drugs and targets. On the other hand, transductive learning methods can enhance predictive accuracy by utilizing additional information from unknown samples in datasets with sparsely known interactions. However, any new nodes or samples added to the dataset necessitate the re-running of the model, which is a trade-off for the improved predictive accuracy provided by the transductive learning approach.

Our goal is to expand our approach to focus on drugs that have lower similarity to other drugs but still have potential for further investigation. In addition, our approach offers improved clarity by using a step-by-step transductive learning process. However, it does require more computational resources compared to inductive learning methods.

It is crucial to emphasize that integrating several similarity matrices from other approaches, such as the Node2vec approach, into our case is not recommended. The reason is that Node2vec relies solely on a single type of relationship, which is a connected relationship. However, our knowledge graph construction requires an embedding approach based on the triplets formed between various entity pairs. We have computed diverse types of similarities between drugs, primarily based on their chemical structure, including the SDF, MOL, or SMILES formats. Additionally, we can utilize different drug similarity measures based on side effects, such as Kuhn’s method, AERS-freq, and AERS-bit.

We have devised an approach to infer novel drugs from the KGE, employing diverse features and decomposition data with multiple classifiers. This approach can be extended to explore HP-PPI between SARS-CoV-2 and human proteins. To enrich our knowledge graph, we integrate information about the Mus-musculus species. Mouse models are widely used to assess COVID-19 disease risks and evaluate potential COVID-19 vaccines. Additionally, mouse models have proven valuable for drug development and studying various immune responses. Our strategy aims to establish an alignment between the PPI networks of Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, and the coronavirus species to identify potential viral interactions relevant to COVID-19. Moreover, we can utilize this alignment to investigate virus-host PPI networks between Homo sapiens, SARS-CoV-2, and SARS-CoV-1 proteins, thereby discovering more conserved edges or common viral interactions.

In the forthcoming network paradigm, our objective is to investigate both topological and biological hypotheses that arise from the interactions among biological entities. This exploration involves the application of representation learning techniques and clustering algorithms [39, 75]. Our future focus lies in leveraging the concept of multi-objective particle swarm optimization [75] to enhance the precision of DTI prediction models. More specifically, our approach involves the utilization of KGE techniques to generate drug embeddings and ProtBERT to obtain protein embeddings. In order to accomplish this objective, we suggest the incorporation of clustering algorithms such as FCAN-MOPSO [75] to facilitate the extraction of meaningful patterns in the data. FCAN-MOPSO is an enhanced graph clustering algorithm for complex networks using fuzzy logic and multi-objective particle swarm optimization. This approach can be applied to group similar drugs or proteins together. Once the clustering is performed, we can analyze the resulting clusters to gain insights into the biological relevance of the identified groups. For example, we can use enrichment analysis to find biological pathways or gene-ontology terms that are linked to proteins in each cluster. This step helps in understanding the functional context of the clustered proteins and their relationships to specific drugs. This approach enables a systematic exploration of DTIs in biological networks, providing valuable information for drug discovery and repurposing efforts. Meanwhile, the clustering analyses permit handling the cold-start problem, e.g., in the case of SARS-CoV-2 and its variants, when the approach needs to make predictions or recommendations for new or previously unseen drugs or targets for which there is limited or no existing data or associations available.

Conclusion

The performance of DTIOG in predicting DTIs outperforms that of other existing approaches. The utilization of drug and target embeddings, along with similarity matrices, enhances the efficacy of the approach by facilitating interpretable predictions and fostering a thorough understanding of drug–target associations. The utilization of DTIOG holds substantial promise in enhancing endeavors related to drug discovery and development, and it may offer valuable insights in the exploration of HP-PPI for infectious diseases such as COVID-19. Our research not only highlights the effectiveness of our proposed approach but also emphasizes the crucial importance of graph-based methods and advanced contextual embeddings. This indicates a promising avenue for future research in the field of computational prediction of drug–target interactions.

Abbreviations

DTIOG Drug target interaction from knowledge graph

KGE Knowledge graph embedding

PPIs Protein–protein interactions

KGs Knowledge graphs

HP-PPI Host-pathogen protein–protein interactions

ML Machine learning

DL Deep learning

PU Positive-unlabeled

DTIs Drug–target interactions

SMILES Simplified molecular input line entry specification

CMNMF Constrained multi-view nonnegative matrix factorization

BERT Bidirectional encoder representations from transformers

WkNN Weighted k-nearest neighbors

HBIN Heterogeneous biological information network

MLM Masked language modeling

GCNs Graph convolutional network

GBDT Gradient boosting decision tree

RF Random forest classifier

DT Decision trees

MLP Multi-layer perceptron

GaussianNB Gaussian Naive Bayes

SGD Stochastic gradient descent

ETC Extra trees classifier

ENZ Enzymes

IC Ion channels

GPCR G-protein-coupled receptors

AUPR The area under the precision-recall curve

AUC The area under the ROC curve

ACC Accuracy

MCC Matthew’s correlation coefficient

F1 F1-score

ProtBERT Protein bidirectional encoder representations from transformers

Acknowledgements

We thank the authors of DTI-HeNE, BLMNII, iGRLDTI, and ALADIN for making available the source code of their program.

Author contributions

GD and SBY initiated the study. WDJ and KHR developed the code, conducted the experiments, and wrote the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final version.

Funding

The authors did not receive any external funding resources for this work.

Availability of data and materials

The source code of DTIOG and the datasets used to generate the results is accessible through https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10209331.

Declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Availability and requirements

Project name: DTIOG

Project home page: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.10209331

Operating system(s): Linux

Programming language: python

License: BSD 3-Clause

Any restrictions to use by non-academics: N/A

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

The original version of this article was revised: the percentages have been corrected.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Change history

9/3/2024

A Correction to this paper has been published: 10.1186/s12859-024-05905-4
==== Refs
References

1. Wang CC Zhao Y Chen X Drug-pathway association prediction: from experimental results to computational models Brief Bioinform 2021 22 3 bbaa061 10.1093/bib/bbaa061 32393976
Wang CC, Zhao Y, Chen X. Drug-pathway association prediction: from experimental results to computational models. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(3):bbaa061.32393976 10.1093/bib/bbaa061
2. Chen X Yan CC Zhang X Zhang X Dai F Yin J Zhang Y Drug–target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models Brief Bioinform 2016 17 4 696 712 10.1093/bib/bbv066 26283676
Chen X, Yan CC, Zhang X, Zhang X, Dai F, Yin J, Zhang Y. Drug–target interaction prediction: databases, web servers and computational models. Brief Bioinform. 2016;17(4):696–712.26283676 10.1093/bib/bbv066
3. Luo Y Zhao X Zhou J Yang J Zhang Y Kuang W Peng J Chen L Zeng J A network integration approach for drug–target interaction prediction and computational drug repositioning from heterogeneous information Nat Commun 2017 8 1 573 10.1038/s41467-017-00680-8 28924171
Luo Y, Zhao X, Zhou J, Yang J, Zhang Y, Kuang W, Peng J, Chen L, Zeng J. A network integration approach for drug–target interaction prediction and computational drug repositioning from heterogeneous information. Nat Commun. 2017;8(1):573.28924171 10.1038/s41467-017-00680-8
4. Eslami MH Nourani M Drug–target interaction prediction using semi-bipartite graph model and deep learning BMC Bioinform 2020 21 4 1 16
Eslami MH, Nourani M. Drug–target interaction prediction using semi-bipartite graph model and deep learning. BMC Bioinform. 2020;21(4):1–16.
5. Agarwal S Mehrotra R An overview of molecular docking JSM Chem 2016 4 1024 1028
Agarwal S, Mehrotra R. An overview of molecular docking. JSM Chem. 2016;4:1024–8.
6. Bagherian M Sabeti E Wang K Sartor MA Nikolovska-Coleska Z Najarian K Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper Brief Bioinform 2021 22 1 247 269 10.1093/bib/bbz157 31950972
Bagherian M, Sabeti E, Wang K, Sartor MA, Nikolovska-Coleska Z, Najarian K. Machine learning approaches and databases for prediction of drug–target interaction: a survey paper. Brief Bioinform. 2021;22(1):247–69.31950972 10.1093/bib/bbz157
7. Zhou H Fang Y Xu T Ni WJ Shen AZ Meng XM Potential therapeutic targets and promising drugs for combating SARS-CoV-2 Br J Pharmacol 2020 177 14 3147 3161 10.1111/bph.15092 32368792
Zhou H, Fang Y, Xu T, Ni WJ, Shen AZ, Meng XM. Potential therapeutic targets and promising drugs for combating SARS-CoV-2. Br J Pharmacol. 2020;177(14):3147–61.32368792 10.1111/bph.15092
8. Syeda HB Syed M Sexton KW Syed S Begum S Syed F Prior F Yu F Jr Role of machine learning techniques to tackle the COVID-19 crisis: systematic review JMIR Med Inform 2021 9 1 e23811 10.2196/23811 33326405
Syeda HB, Syed M, Sexton KW, Syed S, Begum S, Syed F, Prior F, Yu F Jr. Role of machine learning techniques to tackle the COVID-19 crisis: systematic review. JMIR Med Inform. 2021;9(1):e23811.33326405 10.2196/23811
9. Sedova M Jaroszewski L Alisoltani A Godzik A Coronavirus 3D: 3D structural visualization of COVID-19 genomic divergence Bioinformatics 2020 36 15 4360 4362 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa550 32470119
Sedova M, Jaroszewski L, Alisoltani A, Godzik A. Coronavirus 3D: 3D structural visualization of COVID-19 genomic divergence. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(15):4360–2.32470119 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa550
10. Donmez A Rifaioglu AS Acar A Dogan T Cetin-Atalay R iBioProVis: interactive visualization and analysis of compound bioactivity space Bioinformatics 2020 36 14 4227 30 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa496 32407491
Donmez A, Rifaioglu AS, Acar A, Dogan T, Cetin-Atalay R. iBioProVis: interactive visualization and analysis of compound bioactivity space. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(14):4227–30.32407491 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa496
11. Khan AA Khan Z COVID-2019-associated overexpressed Prevotella proteins mediated host–pathogen interactions and their role in coronavirus outbreak Bioinformatics 2020 36 13 4065 4069 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa285 32374823
Khan AA, Khan Z. COVID-2019-associated overexpressed Prevotella proteins mediated host–pathogen interactions and their role in coronavirus outbreak. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(13):4065–9.32374823 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa285
12. Su X You Z Wang L Hu L Wong L Ji B Zhao B SANE: a sequence combined attentive network embedding model for COVID-19 drug repositioning Appl Soft Comput 2021 111 107831 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107831 34456656
Su X, You Z, Wang L, Hu L, Wong L, Ji B, Zhao B. SANE: a sequence combined attentive network embedding model for COVID-19 drug repositioning. Appl Soft Comput. 2021;111: 107831.34456656 10.1016/j.asoc.2021.107831
13. Su X Hu L You Z Hu P Wang L Zhao B A deep learning method for repurposing antiviral drugs against new viruses via multi-view nonnegative matrix factorization and its application to SARS-CoV-2 Brief Bioinform 2022 23 bbab526 10.1093/bib/bbab526 34965582
Su X, Hu L, You Z, Hu P, Wang L, Zhao B. A deep learning method for repurposing antiviral drugs against new viruses via multi-view nonnegative matrix factorization and its application to SARS-CoV-2. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23:bbab526. 10.1093/bib/bbab526.34965582 10.1093/bib/bbab526
14. Marina B Gayo D Martin D Fleur M The OREGANO knowledge graph for computational drug repurposing Sci Data 2023 20 1 10.1038/s41597-023-02757-0
Marina B, Gayo D, Martin D, Fleur M. The OREGANO knowledge graph for computational drug repurposing. Sci Data. 2023;20:1. 10.1038/s41597-023-02757-0.10.1038/s41597-023-02757-0
15. Chandak P Huang K Zitnik M Building a knowledge graph to enable precision medicine Sci Data 2023 10 67 10.1038/s41597-023-01960-3 36732524
Chandak P, Huang K, Zitnik M. Building a knowledge graph to enable precision medicine. Sci Data. 2023;10:67. 10.1038/s41597-023-01960-3.36732524 10.1038/s41597-023-01960-3
16. Lin X Quan Z Wang Z Ma T Zeng X KGNN: knowledge graph neural network for drug–drug interaction prediction IJCAI 2020 380 2739 2745
Lin X, Quan Z, Wang Z, Ma T, Zeng X. KGNN: knowledge graph neural network for drug–drug interaction prediction. IJCAI. 2020;380:2739–45.
17. Yu Y Huang K Zhang C Glass L Sun J Xiao C SumGNN: multi-typed drug interaction prediction via efficient knowledge graph summarization Bioinformatics 2021 37 2988 2995 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab207 33769494
Yu Y, Huang K, Zhang C, Glass L, Sun J, Xiao C. SumGNN: multi-typed drug interaction prediction via efficient knowledge graph summarization. Bioinformatics. 2021;37:2988–95.33769494 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab207
18. Su X Hu L You Z Hu P Zhao B Attention-based knowledge graph representation learning for predicting drug–drug interactions Brief Bioinform 2022 23 bbac140 10.1093/bib/bbac140 35453147
Su X, Hu L, You Z, Hu P, Zhao B. Attention-based knowledge graph representation learning for predicting drug–drug interactions. Brief Bioinform. 2022;23:bbac140.35453147 10.1093/bib/bbac140
19. Su X, You Z, Huang D, Wang L, Wong L, Ji B, Zhao B. Biomedical knowledge graph embedding with capsule network for multi-label drug–drug interaction prediction. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng. 2022.
20. Olayan RS Ashoor H Bajic VB DDR: efficient computational method to predict drug–target interactions using graph mining and machine learning approaches Bioinformatics 2018 34 7 1164 1173 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx731 29186331
Olayan RS, Ashoor H, Bajic VB. DDR: efficient computational method to predict drug–target interactions using graph mining and machine learning approaches. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(7):1164–73.29186331 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx731
21. Elnaggar A Heinzinger M Dallago C Rehawi G Wang Y Jones L Gibbs T Feher T Angerer C Steinegger M Others Prottrans: toward understanding the language of life through self-supervised learning IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell 2021 44 7112 7127 10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3095381
Elnaggar A, Heinzinger M, Dallago C, Rehawi G, Wang Y, Jones L, Gibbs T, Feher T, Angerer C, Steinegger M. Others Prottrans: toward understanding the language of life through self-supervised learning. IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell. 2021;44:7112–27.10.1109/TPAMI.2021.3095381
22. Zeng X Xinqi T Liu Y Xiangzheng F Yansen S Toward better drug discovery with knowledge graph Curr Opin Struct Biol 2022 72 114 126 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.09.003 34649044
Zeng X, Xinqi T, Liu Y, Xiangzheng F, Yansen S. Toward better drug discovery with knowledge graph. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2022;72:114–26. 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.09.003.34649044 10.1016/j.sbi.2021.09.003
23. Cheng AC Coleman RG Smyth KT Cao Q Soulard P Caffrey DR Salzberg AC Huang ES Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability Nat Biotechnol 2007 25 1 71 75 10.1038/nbt1273 17211405
Cheng AC, Coleman RG, Smyth KT, Cao Q, Soulard P, Caffrey DR, Salzberg AC, Huang ES. Structure-based maximal affinity model predicts small-molecule druggability. Nat Biotechnol. 2007;25(1):71–5.17211405 10.1038/nbt1273
24. Alonso H Bliznyuk AA Gready JE Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design Med Res Rev 2006 26 5 531 568 10.1002/med.20067 16758486
Alonso H, Bliznyuk AA, Gready JE. Combining docking and molecular dynamic simulations in drug design. Med Res Rev. 2006;26(5):531–68.16758486 10.1002/med.20067
25. Li J Zheng S Chen B Butte AJ Swamidass SJ Lu Z A survey of current trends in computational drug repositioning Brief Bioinform 2016 17 1 2 12 10.1093/bib/bbv020 25832646
Li J, Zheng S, Chen B, Butte AJ, Swamidass SJ, Lu Z. A survey of current trends in computational drug repositioning. Brief Bioinform. 2016;17(1):2–12.25832646 10.1093/bib/bbv020
26. Rayhan F Ahmed S Shatabda S Farid DM Mousavian Z Dehzangi A Rahman MS iDTI-ESBoost: identification of drug target interaction using evolutionary and structural features with boosting Sci Rep 2017 7 1 1 18 10.1038/s41598-017-18025-2 28127051
Rayhan F, Ahmed S, Shatabda S, Farid DM, Mousavian Z, Dehzangi A, Rahman MS. iDTI-ESBoost: identification of drug target interaction using evolutionary and structural features with boosting. Sci Rep. 2017;7(1):1–18.28127051 10.1038/s41598-017-18025-2
27. Douza S Prema KV Balaji S Machine learning models for drug–target interactions: current knowledge and future directions Drug Discov Today 2020 25 4 748 756 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.03.003 32171918
Douza S, Prema KV, Balaji S. Machine learning models for drug–target interactions: current knowledge and future directions. Drug Discov Today. 2020;25(4):748–56.32171918 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.03.003
28. Yue X Wang Z Huang J Parthasarathy S Moosavinasab S Huang Y Lin S Zhang W Zhang P Sun H Graph embedding on biomedical networks: methods, applications and evaluations Bioinformatics 2019 36 1241 1251 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718
Yue X, Wang Z, Huang J, Parthasarathy S, Moosavinasab S, Huang Y, Lin S, Zhang W, Zhang P, Sun H. Graph embedding on biomedical networks: methods, applications and evaluations. Bioinformatics. 2019;36:1241–51. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718.10.1093/bioinformatics/btz718
29. Zong N Kim H Ngo V Harismendy O Deep mining heterogeneous networks of biomedical linked data to predict novel drug–target associations Bioinformatics 2017 33 15 2337 2344 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx160 28430977
Zong N, Kim H, Ngo V, Harismendy O. Deep mining heterogeneous networks of biomedical linked data to predict novel drug–target associations. Bioinformatics. 2017;33(15):2337–44.28430977 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx160
30. Zeng X Zhu S Lu W Liu Z Huang J Zhou Y Fang J Huang Y Guo H Li L Trapp BD Target identification among known drugs by deep learning from heterogeneous networks Chem Sci 2020 11 7 1775 1797 10.1039/C9SC04336E 34123272
Zeng X, Zhu S, Lu W, Liu Z, Huang J, Zhou Y, Fang J, Huang Y, Guo H, Li L, Trapp BD. Target identification among known drugs by deep learning from heterogeneous networks. Chem Sci. 2020;11(7):1775–97.34123272 10.1039/C9SC04336E
31. Zeng X Zhu S Hou Y Zhang P Li L Li J Huang LF Lewis SJ Nussinov R Cheng F Network-based prediction of drug–target interactions using an arbitrary-order proximity embedded deep forest Bioinformatics 2020 36 9 2805 2812 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa010 31971579
Zeng X, Zhu S, Hou Y, Zhang P, Li L, Li J, Huang LF, Lewis SJ, Nussinov R, Cheng F. Network-based prediction of drug–target interactions using an arbitrary-order proximity embedded deep forest. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(9):2805–12.31971579 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa010
32. Zhao BW You ZH Hu L Guo ZH Wang L Chen ZH Wong L A novel method to predict drug–target interactions based on large-scale graph representation learning Cancers 2021 13 9 2111 10.3390/cancers13092111 33925568
Zhao BW, You ZH, Hu L, Guo ZH, Wang L, Chen ZH, Wong L. A novel method to predict drug–target interactions based on large-scale graph representation learning. Cancers. 2021;13(9):2111.33925568 10.3390/cancers13092111
33. Cheng S Zhang L Jin B Zhang Q Lu X You M Tian X GraphMS: drug target prediction using graph representation learning with substructures Appl Sci 2021 11 7 3239 10.3390/app11073239
Cheng S, Zhang L, Jin B, Zhang Q, Lu X, You M, Tian X. GraphMS: drug target prediction using graph representation learning with substructures. Appl Sci. 2021;11(7):3239.10.3390/app11073239
34. Thafar MA Olayan RS Ashoor H Albaradei S Bajic VB Gao X Gojobori T Essack M DTiGEMS+: drug–target interaction prediction using graph embedding, graph mining, and similarity-based techniques J Cheminform 2020 12 1 1 17 10.1186/s13321-020-00447-2 33430988
Thafar MA, Olayan RS, Ashoor H, Albaradei S, Bajic VB, Gao X, Gojobori T, Essack M. DTiGEMS+: drug–target interaction prediction using graph embedding, graph mining, and similarity-based techniques. J Cheminform. 2020;12(1):1–17.33430988 10.1186/s13321-020-00447-2
35. Wu G Yang M Li Y Wang J De Novo prediction of drug–target interactions using Laplacian regularized Schatten p-norm minimization J Comput Biol 2021 28 7 660 673 10.1089/cmb.2020.0538 33481664
Wu G, Yang M, Li Y, Wang J. De Novo prediction of drug–target interactions using Laplacian regularized Schatten p-norm minimization. J Comput Biol. 2021;28(7):660–73.33481664 10.1089/cmb.2020.0538
36. Liu B, Pliakos K, Vens C. Drug target interaction prediction via an ensemble of weighted nearest neighbors with interaction recovery. Appl Intell 2022;1–23.
37. Buza K, Peska L. Aladin: a new approach for drug–target interaction prediction. In: Machine learning and knowledge discovery in databases, European conference, ECML PKDD 2017, Skopje, Macedonia, September 18–22, 2017, Proceedings, Part II 10, p. 322–37. Springer.
38. Yue Y He S DTI-HeNE: a novel method for drug–target interaction prediction based on heterogeneous network embedding BMC Bioinform 2021 22 1 1 20 10.1186/s12859-021-04327-w
Yue Y, He S. DTI-HeNE: a novel method for drug–target interaction prediction based on heterogeneous network embedding. BMC Bioinform. 2021;22(1):1–20.10.1186/s12859-021-04327-w
39. Zhao B Su X Hu P Huang Y You Z Hu L iGRLDTI: an improved graph representation learning method for predicting drug–target interactions over heterogeneous biological information network Bioinformatics 2023 39 btad451 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad451 37505483
Zhao B, Su X, Hu P, Huang Y, You Z, Hu L. iGRLDTI: an improved graph representation learning method for predicting drug–target interactions over heterogeneous biological information network. Bioinformatics. 2023;39:btad451.37505483 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad451
40. Su X Hu P Yi H You Z Hu L Predicting drug–target interactions over heterogeneous information network IEEE J Biomed Health Inform 2022 27 562 572 10.1109/JBHI.2022.3219213
Su X, Hu P, Yi H, You Z, Hu L. Predicting drug–target interactions over heterogeneous information network. IEEE J Biomed Health Inform. 2022;27:562–72.10.1109/JBHI.2022.3219213
41. Yang B, Yih WT, He X, Gao J, Deng L. Embedding entities and relations for learning and inference in knowledge bases. arXiv preprint arXiv:1412.6575 2014.
42. Wang X Ding Z Wang R Lin X Deepro-Glu: combination of convolutional neural network and Bi-LSTM models using ProtBERT and handcrafted features to identify lysine glutarylation sites Brief Bioinform 2023 24 bbac631 10.1093/bib/bbac631 36653898
Wang X, Ding Z, Wang R, Lin X. Deepro-Glu: combination of convolutional neural network and Bi-LSTM models using ProtBERT and handcrafted features to identify lysine glutarylation sites. Brief Bioinform. 2023;24:bbac631. 10.1093/bib/bbac631.36653898 10.1093/bib/bbac631
43. Suzek B Huang H McGarvey P Mazumder R Wu C UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters Bioinformatics 2007 23 1282 1288 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm098 17379688
Suzek B, Huang H, McGarvey P, Mazumder R, Wu C. UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters. Bioinformatics. 2007;23:1282–8.17379688 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm098
44. Wishart DS Feunang YD Guo AC Lo EJ Marcu A Grant JR Sajed T Johnson D Li C Sayeeda Z Assempour N DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018 Nucleic Acids Res 2018 46 D1 D1074 D1082 10.1093/nar/gkx1037 29126136
Wishart DS, Feunang YD, Guo AC, Lo EJ, Marcu A, Grant JR, Sajed T, Johnson D, Li C, Sayeeda Z, Assempour N. DrugBank 5.0: a major update to the DrugBank database for 2018. Nucleic Acids Res. 2018;46(D1):D1074–82.29126136 10.1093/nar/gkx1037
45. Landrum G Rdkit documentation Release 2013 1 4
Landrum G. Rdkit documentation. Release. 2013;1:4.
46. Vincent P, Larochelle H, Bengio Y, Manzagol P. Extracting and composing robust features with denoising autoencoders. In: Proceedings Of The 25th international conference on machine learning 2008;1096–1103.
47. The UniProt Consortium UniProt the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021 Nucleic Acids Res 2020 49 D480 D489 10.1093/nar/gkaa1100
The UniProt Consortium UniProt. the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2020;49:D480–9.10.1093/nar/gkaa1100
48. Dai Y Wang S Xiong NN Guo W A survey on knowledge graph embedding: approaches, applications and benchmarks Electronics 2020 9 5 750 10.3390/electronics9050750
Dai Y, Wang S, Xiong NN, Guo W. A survey on knowledge graph embedding: approaches, applications and benchmarks. Electronics. 2020;9(5):750.10.3390/electronics9050750
49. Wang X Gao T Zhu Z Zhang Z Liu Z Li J Tang J KEPLER: a unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation Trans Assoc Comput Linguist 2021 9 176 194 10.1162/tacl_a_00360
Wang X, Gao T, Zhu Z, Zhang Z, Liu Z, Li J, Tang J. KEPLER: a unified model for knowledge embedding and pre-trained language representation. Trans Assoc Comput Linguist. 2021;9:176–94.10.1162/tacl_a_00360
50. Xie R, Liu Z, Jia J, Luan H, Sun M. Representation learning of knowledge graphs with entity descriptions. In: Proceedings of the AAAI conference on artificial intelligence. 2016;30 .
51. Devlin J, Chang M, Lee K, Toutanova K. BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding. In: Proceedings of the 2019 conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics: human language technologies, Vol 1 (Long And Short Papers). pp. 4171-4186 (2019)
52. Freshour SL Kiwala S Cotto KC Coffman AC McMichael JF Song JJ Griffith M Griffith OL Wagner AH Integration of the drug–gene interaction database (DGIdb 4.0) with open crowdsource efforts Nucleic Acids Res 2021 49 D1 D1144 D1151 10.1093/nar/gkaa1084 33237278
Freshour SL, Kiwala S, Cotto KC, Coffman AC, McMichael JF, Song JJ, Griffith M, Griffith OL, Wagner AH. Integration of the drug–gene interaction database (DGIdb 4.0) with open crowdsource efforts. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D1144–51.33237278 10.1093/nar/gkaa1084
53. Percha B Altman RB A global network of biomedical relationships derived from text Bioinformatics 2018 34 15 2614 2624 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty114 29490008
Percha B, Altman RB. A global network of biomedical relationships derived from text. Bioinformatics. 2018;34(15):2614–24.29490008 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty114
54. Himmelstein DS Lizee A Hessler C Brueggeman L Chen SL Hadley D Green A Khankhanian P Baranzini SE Systematic integration of biomedical knowledge prioritizes drugs for repurposing Elife 2017 6 e26726 10.7554/eLife.26726 28936969
Himmelstein DS, Lizee A, Hessler C, Brueggeman L, Chen SL, Hadley D, Green A, Khankhanian P, Baranzini SE. Systematic integration of biomedical knowledge prioritizes drugs for repurposing. Elife. 2017;6:e26726.28936969 10.7554/eLife.26726
55. Szklarczyk D Gable AL Nastou KC Lyon D Kirsch R Pyysalo S Doncheva NT Legeay M Fang T Bork P Jensen LJ The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein–protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets Nucleic Acids Res 2021 49 D1 D605 D612 10.1093/nar/gkaa1074 33237311
Szklarczyk D, Gable AL, Nastou KC, Lyon D, Kirsch R, Pyysalo S, Doncheva NT, Legeay M, Fang T, Bork P, Jensen LJ. The STRING database in 2021: customizable protein–protein networks, and functional characterization of user-uploaded gene/measurement sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D605–12.33237311 10.1093/nar/gkaa1074
56. Bordes A, Usunier N, Garcia-Duran A, Weston J, Yakhnenko O. Translating embeddings for modeling multi-relational data. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 2013;26.
57. Lin Y, Liu Z, Sun M, Liu Y, Zhu X. Learning entity and relation embeddings for knowledge graph completion. In: Current opinion in chemical biology, Twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence 2015.
58. Yamanishi Y Araki M Gutteridge A Honda W Kanehisa M Prediction of drug–target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces Bioinformatics 2008 24 13 i232 i240 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162 18586719
Yamanishi Y, Araki M, Gutteridge A, Honda W, Kanehisa M. Prediction of drug–target interaction networks from the integration of chemical and genomic spaces. Bioinformatics. 2008;24(13):i232–40. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162.18586719 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn162
59. Kambhatla N Leen T Dimension reduction by local principal component analysis Neural Comput 1997 9 1493 1516 10.1162/neco.1997.9.7.1493
Kambhatla N, Leen T. Dimension reduction by local principal component analysis. Neural Comput. 1997;9:1493–516.10.1162/neco.1997.9.7.1493
60. Liu S, An J, Zhao J, Zhao S, Lv H, Wang S. Drug–target interaction prediction based on multisource information weighted fusion. Contrast Med Mol Imaging. 2021;2021
61. Davis AP Grondin CJ Johnson RJ Sciaky D Wiegers J Wiegers TC Mattingly CJ Comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD): update 2021 Nucleic Acids Res 2021 49 D1 D1138 D1143 10.1093/nar/gkaa891 33068428
Davis AP, Grondin CJ, Johnson RJ, Sciaky D, Wiegers J, Wiegers TC, Mattingly CJ. Comparative toxicogenomics database (CTD): update 2021. Nucleic Acids Res. 2021;49(D1):D1138–43.33068428 10.1093/nar/gkaa891
62. Dimmer EC Huntley RP Alam-Faruque Y Sawford T O’Donovan C Martin MJ Bely B Browne P Mun Chan W Eberhardt R Gardner M The UniProt-GO annotation database in 2011 Nucleic Acids Res 2012 40 D1 D565 D570 10.1093/nar/gkr1048 22123736
Dimmer EC, Huntley RP, Alam-Faruque Y, Sawford T, O’Donovan C, Martin MJ, Bely B, Browne P, Mun Chan W, Eberhardt R, Gardner M. The UniProt-GO annotation database in 2011. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(D1):D565–70.22123736 10.1093/nar/gkr1048
63. Hermjakob H Montecchi-Palazzi L Lewington C Mudali S Kerrien S Orchard S Vingron M Roechert B Roepstorff P Valencia A Margalit H IntAct: an open source molecular interaction database Nucleic Acids Res 2004 32 suppl 1 D452 D455 10.1093/nar/gkh052 14681455
Hermjakob H, Montecchi-Palazzi L, Lewington C, Mudali S, Kerrien S, Orchard S, Vingron M, Roechert B, Roepstorff P, Valencia A, Margalit H. IntAct: an open source molecular interaction database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2004;32(suppl 1):D452–5.14681455 10.1093/nar/gkh052
64. Kanehisa M. The KEGG database. ‘In Silico’ simulation of biological processes: Novartis foundation symposium. 2002;247:91–103.
65. Gaulton A Hersey A Nowotka M Bento A Chambers J Mendez D Mutowo P Atkinson F Bellis L Cibrián-Uhalte E Davies M The ChEMBL database in 2017 Nucleic Acids Res 2017 45 D945 D954 10.1093/nar/gkw1074 27899562
Gaulton A, Hersey A, Nowotka M, Bento A, Chambers J, Mendez D, Mutowo P, Atkinson F, Bellis L, Cibrián-Uhalte E, Davies M. The ChEMBL database in 2017. Nucleic Acids Res. 2017;45:D945–54.27899562 10.1093/nar/gkw1074
66. Ammar M Sacha G Welch S Bass S Kane-Gill S Duggal A Ammar A Sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients in the setting of drug shortages J Intensive Care Med 2021 36 157 174 10.1177/0885066620951426 32844730
Ammar M, Sacha G, Welch S, Bass S, Kane-Gill S, Duggal A, Ammar A. Sedation, analgesia, and paralysis in COVID-19 patients in the setting of drug shortages. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:157–74.32844730 10.1177/0885066620951426
67. Romero-Martinez B Montano L Solis-Chagoyan H Sommer B Ramirez-Salinas G Perez-Figueroa G Flores-Soto E Possible beneficial actions of caffeine in SARS-CoV-2 Int J Mol Sci 2021 22 5460 10.3390/ijms22115460 34067243
Romero-Martinez B, Montano L, Solis-Chagoyan H, Sommer B, Ramirez-Salinas G, Perez-Figueroa G, Flores-Soto E. Possible beneficial actions of caffeine in SARS-CoV-2. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22:5460.34067243 10.3390/ijms22115460
68. Elzupir A Caffeine and caffeine-containing pharmaceuticals as promising inhibitors for 3-chymotrypsin-like protease of SARS-CoV-2 J Biomol Struct Dyn 2022 40 2113 2120 10.1080/07391102.2020.1835732 33094705
Elzupir A. Caffeine and caffeine-containing pharmaceuticals as promising inhibitors for 3-chymotrypsin-like protease of SARS-CoV-2. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2022;40:2113–20.33094705 10.1080/07391102.2020.1835732
69. Mohammadi S Heidarizadeh M Entesari M Esmailpour A Esmailpour M Moradi R Sakhaee N Doustkhah E In silico investigation on the inhibiting role of nicotine/caffeine by blocking the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 versus ACE2 receptor Microorganisms 2020 8 1600 10.3390/microorganisms8101600 33080900
Mohammadi S, Heidarizadeh M, Entesari M, Esmailpour A, Esmailpour M, Moradi R, Sakhaee N, Doustkhah E. In silico investigation on the inhibiting role of nicotine/caffeine by blocking the S protein of SARS-CoV-2 versus ACE2 receptor. Microorganisms. 2020;8:1600.33080900 10.3390/microorganisms8101600
70. Manohar K Gupta R Gupta P Saha D Gare S Sarkar R Misra A Giri L FDA approved L-type channel blocker Nifedipine reduces cell death in hypoxic A549 cells through modulation of mitochondrial calcium and superoxide generation Free Radic Biol Med 2021 177 189 200 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2021.08.245 34666149
Manohar K, Gupta R, Gupta P, Saha D, Gare S, Sarkar R, Misra A, Giri L. FDA approved L-type channel blocker Nifedipine reduces cell death in hypoxic A549 cells through modulation of mitochondrial calcium and superoxide generation. Free Radic Biol Med. 2021;177:189–200.34666149 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2021.08.245
71. Mahgoub S El-Sayed M El-Shehry M Awad S Mansour Y Fatahala S Synthesis of novel calcium channel blockers with ACE2 inhibition and dual antihypertensive/anti-inflammatory effects: A possible therapeutic tool for COVID-19 Bioorg Chem 2021 116 105272 10.1016/j.bioorg.2021.105272 34474305
Mahgoub S, El-Sayed M, El-Shehry M, Awad S, Mansour Y, Fatahala S. Synthesis of novel calcium channel blockers with ACE2 inhibition and dual antihypertensive/anti-inflammatory effects: A possible therapeutic tool for COVID-19. Bioorg Chem. 2021;116: 105272.34474305 10.1016/j.bioorg.2021.105272
72. Mazzatenta C Piccolo V Argenziano G Bassi A Oral cinnarizine for the treatment of COVID-19-associated chilblain-like lesions: an old drug for a new disease? Dermatol Ther 2022 35 e15365 10.1111/dth.15365 35137498
Mazzatenta C, Piccolo V, Argenziano G, Bassi A. Oral cinnarizine for the treatment of COVID-19-associated chilblain-like lesions: an old drug for a new disease? Dermatol Ther. 2022;35: e15365.35137498 10.1111/dth.15365
73. Tang C Ding H Jiao R Wu X Kong L Possibility of magnesium supplementation for supportive treatment in patients with COVID-19 Eur J Pharmacol 2020 886 173546 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173546 32931782
Tang C, Ding H, Jiao R, Wu X, Kong L. Possibility of magnesium supplementation for supportive treatment in patients with COVID-19. Eur J Pharmacol. 2020;886: 173546.32931782 10.1016/j.ejphar.2020.173546
74. Boelig R Manuck T Oliver E Di Mascio D Saccone G Bellussi F Berghella V Labor and delivery guidance for COVID-19 Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM 2020 2 100110 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100110 32518901
Boelig R, Manuck T, Oliver E, Di Mascio D, Saccone G, Bellussi F, Berghella V. Labor and delivery guidance for COVID-19. Am J Obstet Gynecol MFM. 2020;2: 100110.32518901 10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100110
75. Hu L, Yang Y, Tang Z, He Y, Luo X. FCAN-MOPSO: an improved fuzzy-based graph clustering algorithm for complex networks with multi-objective particle swarm optimization. IEEE Trans Fuzzy Syst 2023.
