
doi: 10.1038/s42256-025-01160-1 , 10.5281/zenodo.11199232 , 10.48550/arxiv.2405.14108 , 10.5281/zenodo.16791095 , 10.5281/zenodo.17536252
pmc: PMC12851923 , PMC11142318
arXiv: 2405.14108
Abstract The effects of ligand binding on protein structures and their in vivo functions carry numerous implications for modern biomedical research and biotechnology development efforts such as drug discovery. Although several deep learning (DL) methods and benchmarks designed for protein–ligand docking have recently been introduced, so far no previous works have systematically studied the behaviour of the latest docking and structure prediction methods within the broadly applicable context of: (1) using predicted (apo) protein structures for docking (for example, for applicability to new proteins); (2) binding multiple (cofactor) ligands concurrently to a given target protein (for example, for enzyme design); and (3) having no previous knowledge of binding pockets (for example, for generalization to unknown pockets). To enable a deeper understanding of the real-world utility of docking methods, we introduce PoseBench, a comprehensive benchmark for broadly applicable protein–ligand docking. PoseBench enables researchers to rigorously and systematically evaluate DL methods for apo-to-holo protein–ligand docking and protein–ligand structure prediction using both primary ligand and multiligand benchmark datasets, the latter of which we introduce to the DL community. Empirically, using PoseBench, we find that: (1) DL cofolding methods generally outperform comparable conventional and DL docking baseline algorithms, but popular methods such as AlphaFold 3 are still challenged by prediction targets with new protein–ligand binding poses; (2) certain DL cofolding methods are highly sensitive to their input multiple sequence alignments, whereas others are not; and (3) DL methods struggle to strike a balance between structural accuracy and chemical specificity when predicting new or multiligand protein targets.
Biomolecules, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Biomolecules (q-bio.BM), Article, Machine Learning (cs.LG), Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Protein-Ligand Structure Prediction, FOS: Biological sciences, Quantitative Methods, Protein-Ligand Docking, I.2.1; J.3, Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
Biomolecules, FOS: Computer and information sciences, Biomolecules (q-bio.BM), Article, Machine Learning (cs.LG), Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI), Deep Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Protein-Ligand Structure Prediction, FOS: Biological sciences, Quantitative Methods, Protein-Ligand Docking, I.2.1; J.3, Quantitative Methods (q-bio.QM)
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 1 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
