Machine Learning Models Identify Inhibitors of SARS-CoV-2

  1. Victor O. Gawriljuk
  2. Phyo Phyo Kyaw Zin
  3. Daniel H. Foil
  4. Jean Bernatchez
  5. Sungjun Beck
  6. Nathan Beutler
  7. James Ricketts
  8. Linlin Yang
  9. Thomas Rogers
  10. Ana C. Puhl
  11. Kimberley M. Zorn
  12. Thomas R. Lane
  13. Andre S. Godoy
  14. Glaucius Oliva
  15. Jair L. Siqueira-Neto
  16. Peter B. Madrid
  17. Sean Ekins

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Discuss this preprint

Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

With the ongoing SARS-CoV-2 pandemic there is an urgent need for the discovery of a treatment for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). Drug repurposing is one of the most rapid strategies for addressing this need and numerous compounds have been selected for in vitro testing by several groups already. These have led to a growing database of molecules with in vitro activity against the virus. Machine learning models can assist drug discovery through prediction of the best compounds based on previously published data. Herein we have implemented several machine learning methods to develop predictive models from recent SARS-CoV-2 in vitro inhibition data and used them to prioritize additional FDA approved compounds for in vitro testing selected from our in-house compound library. From the compounds predicted with a Bayesian machine learning model, CPI1062 and CPI1155 showed antiviral activity in HeLa-ACE2 cell-based assays and represent potential repurposing opportunities for COVID-19. This approach can be greatly expanded to exhaustively virtually screen available molecules with predicted activity against this virus as well as a prioritization tool for SARS-CoV-2 antiviral drug discovery programs. The very latest model for SARS-CoV-2 is available at www.assaycentral.org .

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.06.16.154765: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    NIH rigor criteria are not applicable to paper type.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2020.06.16.154765 on bioRxiv