Category Archives: Proteins

New DPhil/PhD Programme in Pharmaceutical Science Joint with GSK!

Many OPIGlets found their way into a DPhil in Protein Informatics through our Systems Approaches to Biomedical Sciences Industrial Doctoral Landscape Award, which was open to applicants 2009-2024. This innovative course, based at the MPLS Doctoral Training Centre (DTC), offered six months of intensive taught modules prior to starting PhD-level research, allowing students to upskill across a diverse range of subjects (coding, mathematics, structural biology, etc.) and to go on to do research in areas significantly distinct from their formal Undergraduate training. All projects also benefited from direct co-supervision from researchers working in the Pharmaceutical industry, ensuring DPhil projects in areas with drug discovery translation potential. Regrettably, having twice successfully applied for renewal of funding, we were unsuccessful in our bid to refund SABS in 2024.

Happily though, we can now formally announce that our bid for a direct successor to SABS, the Transformative Technologies in Pharmaceutical Sciences IDLA, has been backed by the BBSRC, and we will shortly be opening for applications for entry this October [2026]. As someone who benefited from the interdisciplinary training and industry-adjacency of SABS, I’m thrilled to be a co-director of this new Programme and to help deliver this course to a new generation of talented students.

Continue reading →

What Molecular ML Can Learn from the Vision Community’s Representation Revolution

Something remarkable happened in computer vision in 2025: the fields of generative modeling and representation learning, which had developed largely independently, suddenly converged. Diffusion models started leveraging pretrained vision encoders like DINOv2 to dramatically accelerate training. Researchers discovered that aligning generative models to pretrained representations doesn’t just speed things up—it often produces better results.

As someone who works on generative models for (among other things) molecules and proteins, I’ve been watching this unfold with great interest. Could we do the same thing for molecular ML? We now have foundation models like MACE that learn powerful atomic representations. Could aligning molecular generative models to these representations provide similar benefits?

In this post, I’ll summarize what happened in vision (organized into four “phases”), and then discuss what I think are the key lessons for molecular machine learning. The punchline: many of these ideas are already starting to appear in our field, but we’re still in the early stages compared to vision.

For a more detailed treatment of the vision developments with full references and figures, see the extended blog post on my website.

Continue reading →

Is the molecule in the computer?

The Molecular Graphics and Modelling Society began life as the Molecular Graphics Society. It’s hard to imagine a time without computer graphics, but yes, it existed. The MGS was formed by the pioneers who made molecular graphics commonplace.

In 1994, the MGS organized an Art and Video Show (Goodsell et al., 1995), and I submitted some of my own work. One of the other images — inspired by Magritte‘s “Ceci n’est pas une pipe”, depicts a molecule with a remarkable similarity to a pipe — and to a molecule… It was submitted by Mike Hann (of GSK):

“Ceci n’est pas une molecule”, image by Mike Hann, 1994.
Continue reading →

Is attention all you need for protein folding?

Researchers from Apple have released SimpleFold, a protein structure prediction model which uses exclusively standard Transformer layers. The results seem to show that SimpleFold is a little less accurate than methods such as AlphaFold2, but much faster and easier to integrate into standard LLM-like workflows. SimpleFold also shows very good scaling performance, in line with other Transformer models like ESM2. So what is powering this seemingly simple development?

Continue reading →

Accelerating AlphaFold 3 for high-throughput structure prediction

Introduction

Recently, I have been conducting a project in which I need to predict the structures of a dataset comprising a few thousand protein sequences using AlphaFold 3. Taking a naive approach, it was taking an hour or two per entry to get a predicted structure. With a few thousand structures, it seemed that it would take months to be able to run…

In this blog post, I will go through some tips I found to help accelerate the structure predictions and make all of the predictions I needed in under a week. In general, following the tips in the AlphaFold 3 performance documentation is a useful starting place. Most of the tips I provide are related to accelerating the MSA generation portion of the predictions because this was the biggest bottleneck in my case.

Continue reading →

How reliable are affinity datasets in practice?

The Data Bottleneck in AI-Powered Drug Discovery

The pharmaceutical industry is undergoing a profound transformation, driven by the promise of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML). These technologies offer the potential to escape the industry’s persistent challenges of high costs, protracted development timelines, and staggering failure rates. From accelerating the identification of novel biological targets to optimizing the properties of lead compounds, AI is poised to enhance the precision and efficiency of drug discovery at nearly every stage

Yet, this revolutionary potential is constrained by a fundamental dependency. The power of modern AI, particularly the deep learning (DL) models that excel at complex pattern recognition, is directly proportional to the volume, diversity, and quality of the data they are trained on. This creates a critical bottleneck: the high-quality experimental data required to train these models—specifically, the protein-ligand binding affinity values that quantify the strength of an interaction—are notoriously scarce, expensive to generate, and often of inconsistent quality or locked within proprietary databases.

Continue reading →

A more robust way to split data for protein-ligand tasks?

As I was recently reading through the paper on the PLINDER dataset while preparing for my next project, one of the aspects of the dataset that caught my attention was how the dataset splits were done to ensure minimal leakage for various protein-ligand tasks that PLINDER could be used for. They had task-specific splits as the notion of data leakage differed from task to task. For instance, in rigid body docking, having a similar protein in the train and test may not be considered leakage if the binding pocket location, conformation, or pocket interactions with a ligand are significantly different. On the other hand, in the case of co-folding, having similar proteins in the train and test sets would be considered data leakage, as predicted protein structures play a significant role in accuracy scoring. The effort that went into creating task-specific splits resonates strongly with OPIG’s view on ensuring minimal data leakage for validating the generalisability of protein-ligand models. However, it may become tedious to create task-specific dataset splits for every protein-ligand task when dealing with a large suite of such tasks. This had me thinking of potential avenues to streamline the dataset split process across the tasks, and one way to do this is by using protein-ligand interaction fingerprints or PLIFs.

Continue reading →

A Masterclass in Basic & Translational Immunology with Prof. Abul Abbas

On Thursday 17th April, a group of us made the journey ‘up the hill’ to the Richard Doll building to attend an immunology masterclass from Professor Abul Abbas. Prof. Abbas is an emeritus professor in Pathology at UCSF and author of numerous core textbooks including Basic Immunology: Functions and Disorders of the Immune System.

The whole-day course consisted of a series of lectures covering core topics in immunology, from innate immunity and antigen presentation through to B/T cell subsets, autoimmunity, and immunotherapy.

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 →

Estimating the Generalisability of Machine Learning Models in Drug Discovery

Machine learning (ML) has significantly advanced key computational tasks in drug discovery, including virtual screening, binding affinity prediction, protein-ligand structure prediction (co-folding), and docking. However, the extent to which these models generalise beyond their training data is often overestimated due to shortcomings in benchmarking datasets. Existing benchmarks frequently fail to account for similarities between the training and test sets, leading to inflated performance estimates. This issue is particularly pronounced in tasks where models tend to memorise training examples rather than learning generalisable biophysical principles. The figure below demonstrates two examples of model performance decreasing with increased dissimilarity between training and test data, for co-folding (left) and binding affinity prediction (right).

Continue reading →