Category Archives: Protein-Ligand Docking

Featurisation is Key: One Version Change that Halved DiffDock’s Performance

1. Introduction 

Molecular docking with graph neural networks works by representing the molecules as featurized graphs. In DiffDock, each ligand becomes a graph of atoms (nodes) and bonds (edges), with features assigned to every atom using chemical properties such as atom type, implicit valence and formal charge. 
 
We recently discovered that a change in RDKit versions significantly reduces performance on the PoseBusters benchmark, due to changes in the “implicit valence” feauture. This post walks through: 

  • How DiffDock featurises ligands 
  • What happened when we upgraded RDKit 2022.03.3 → 2025.03.1 
  • Why training with zero-only features and testing on non-zero features is so bad 

TL:DR: Use the dependencies listed in the environment.yml file, especially in the case of DiffDock, or your performance could half!  

Continue reading →

Narrowing the gap between machine learning scoring functions and free energy perturbation using augmented data

I’m delighted to report our collaboration (Ísak Valsson, Matthew Warren, Aniket Magarkar, Phil Biggin, & Charlotte Deane), on “Narrowing the gap between machine learning scoring functions and free energy perturbation using augmented data”, has been published in Nature’s Communications Chemistry (https://doi.org/10.1038/s42004-025-01428-y).


During his MSc dissertation project in the Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, OPIG member Ísak Valsson developed an attention-based GNN to predict protein-ligand binding affinity called “AEV-PLIG”. It featurizes a ligand’s atoms using Atomic Environment Vectors to describe the Protein-Ligand Interactions found in a 3D protein-ligand complex. AEV-PLIG is free and open source (BSD 3-Clause), available from GitHub at https://github.com/oxpig/AEV-PLIG, and forked at https://github.com/bigginlab/AEV-PLIG.

Continue reading →

Comparing pose and affinity prediction methods for follow-up designs from fragments

In any task in the realm of virtual screening, there need to be many filters applied to a dataset of ligands to downselect the ‘best’ ones on a number of parameters to produce a manageable size. One popular filter is if a compound has a physical pose and good affinity as predicted by tools such as docking or energy minimisation. In my pipeline for downselecting elaborations of compounds proposed as fragment follow-ups, I calculate the pose and ΔΔG by energy minimizing the ligand with atom restraints to matching atoms in the fragment inspiration. I either use RDKit using its MMFF94 forcefield or PyRosetta using its ref2015 scorefunction, all made possible by the lovely tool Fragmenstein.

With RDKit as the minimizer the protein neighborhood around the ligand is fixed and placements take on average 21s whereas with PyRosetta placements, they take on average 238s (and I can run placements in parallel luckily). I would ideally like to use RDKit as the placement method since it is so fast and I would like to perform 500K within a few days but, I wanted to confirm that RDKit is ‘good enough’ compared to the slightly more rigorous tool PyRosetta (it allows residues to relax and samples more conformations with the longer runtime I think).

Continue reading →

Fine-tune generated molecular poses with a force field

Some molecular pose generation methods benefit from an energy relaxation post-processing step.

Predicted pose before energy minimization
Example of a small molecule pose before and after energy minimization. The pose before minimization is shown in white, the optimized prediction is shown in pink, and a crystal pose is shown as reference in light blue. Note how the aromatic rings are flattened and the leftmost bond is shortened by the optimization.

Here is a quick way to do this using OpenMM via a short script I prepared:

Continue reading →

Demystifying the thermodynamics of ligand binding

Chemoinformatics uses a curious jumble of terms from thermodynamics, wet-lab techniques and statistical terminology, which is at its most jarring, it could be argued, in machine learning. In some datasets one often sees pIC50, pEC50, pKi and pKD, in discussion sections a medchemist may talk casually of entropy, whereas in the world of molecular mechanics everything is internal energy. Herein I hope to address some common misconceptions and unify these concepts.

Continue reading →

A simple criterion can conceal a multitude of chemical and structural sins

We’ve been investigating deep learning-based protein-ligand docking methods which often claim to be able to generate ligand binding modes within 2Å RMSD of the experimental one. We found, however, this simple criterion can conceal a multitude of chemical and structural sins…

X-ray crystal structure of ligand in PDB ID 1t9b.
Intertwined rings of the ligand from 1t9b.

DeepDock attempted to generate the ligand binding mode from PDB ID 1t9b
(light blue carbons, left), but gave pretzeled rings instead (white carbons, right).

Continue reading →

9th Joint Sheffield Conference on Cheminformatics

Over the next few days, researchers from around the world will be gathering in Sheffield for the 9th Joint Sheffield Conference on Cheminformatics. As one of the organizers (wearing my Molecular Graphics and Modeling Society ‘hat’), I can say we have an exciting array of speakers and sessions:

  • De Novo Design
  • Open Science
  • Chemical Space
  • Physics-based Modelling
  • Machine Learning
  • Property Prediction
  • Virtual Screening
  • Case Studies
  • Molecular Representations

It has traditionally taken place every three years, but despite the global pandemic it is returning this year, once again in person in the excellent conference facilities at The Edge. You can download the full programme in iCal format, and here is the conference calendar:

Continue reading →

Meeko: Docking straight from SMILES string

When docking, using software like AutoDock Vina, you must prepare your ligand by protonating the molecule, generating 3D coordinates, and converting it to a specific file format (in the case of Vina, PDBQT). Docking software typically needs the protein and ligand file inputs to be written on disk. This is limiting as generating 10,000s of files for a large virtual screen can be annoying and hinder the speed at which you dock.

Fortunately, the Forli group in Scripps Research have developed a Python package, Meeko, to prepare ligands directly from SMILES or other molecule formats for docking to AutoDock 4 or Vina, without writing any files to disk. This means you can dock directly from a single file containing all the SMILES of the ligands you are investigating!

Continue reading →

5th Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry Symposium

The lineup for the Royal Society of Chemistry’s 5th “Artificial Intelligence in Chemistry” Symposium (Thursday-Friday, 1st-2nd September 2022) is now complete for both oral and poster presentations. It really is a fantastic selection of topics and speakers and it is clear this event is now a highlight of the scientific calendar. Our very own Prof. Charlotte M. Deane, MBE will be giving a keynote.

5th RSC-BMCS/RSC-CICAG Airtificial Intelligence in Chemistry Symposium, 1st-2nd September, Churchill College, Cambridge + Zoom broadcast.

It marks a return to in-person meetings: it will be held at Churchill College, Cambridge, with a conference dinner at Trinity Hall.

More details are here: https://www.rscbmcs.org/events/aichem22/.

Registration for in person attendance is open until Monday 29th August 17:00 (BST).

It is also possible to register for virtual attendance; the meeting will be broadcast on Zoom.

, ,