Flexible protein–protein docking with a multitrack iterative transformer
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Conventional protein–protein docking algorithms usually rely on heavy candidate sampling and reranking, but these steps are time‐consuming and hinder applications that require high‐throughput complex structure prediction, for example, structure‐based virtual screening. Existing deep learning methods for protein–protein docking, despite being much faster, suffer from low docking success rates. In addition, they simplify the problem to assume no conformational changes within any protein upon binding (rigid docking). This assumption precludes applications when binding‐induced conformational changes play a role, such as allosteric inhibition or docking from uncertain unbound model structures. To address these limitations, we present GeoDock, a multitrack iterative transformer network to predict a docked structure from separate docking partners. Unlike deep learning models for protein structure prediction that input multiple sequence alignments, GeoDock inputs just the sequences and structures of the docking partners, which suits the tasks when the individual structures are given. GeoDock is flexible at the protein residue level, allowing the prediction of conformational changes upon binding. On the Database of Interacting Protein Structures (DIPS) test set, GeoDock achieves a 43% top‐1 success rate, outperforming all other tested methods. However, in the standard DIPS train/test splits, we discovered contamination of close homologs in the training set. After decontaminating the training set, the success rate is 31%. On the DB5.5 test set and a benchmark dataset of antibody–antigen complexes, GeoDock outperforms the deep learning models trained using the same dataset but falls behind most of the conventional methods and AlphaFold‐Multimer. GeoDock attains an average inference speed of under 1 s on a single GPU, enabling its application in large‐scale structure screening. Although binding‐induced conformational changes are still a challenge owing to limited training and evaluation data, our architecture sets up the foundation to capture this backbone flexibility. Code and a demonstration Jupyter notebook are available at https://github.com/Graylab/GeoDock .
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
ColabFold - Making protein folding accessible to all
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S., & Steinegger, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.15.456425 · Cited by 9,391 · see citing works
Varadi, M., Anyango, S., Deshpande, M., Nair, S., Natassia, C., Yordanova, G., Yuan, D., Stroe, O., Wood, G., Laydon, A., et al. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · Cited by 7,850 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808 · see citing works
Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2016239118 · Cited by 3,286 · see citing works
Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C. L., Ma, J., et al. (2019) · doi:10.1101/622803 · Cited by 3,280 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Nevertheless, ablation studies conducted by DockGPT (McPartlon & Xu, 2023) suggested that incorporating ESM-1b (Rives et al., 2021) embeddings for each chain does not markedly enhance docking performance.”
BackgroundZDOCK: An initial‐stage protein‐docking algorithm
Chen, R., Li, L., & Weng, Z. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10389 · Cited by 1,393 · see citing works
CAPRI: A Critical Assessment of PRedicted Interactions
Janin, J., Henrick, K., Moult, J., Eyck, L. T., Sternberg, M. J. E., Vajda, S., Vakser, I., & Wodak, S. J. (2003) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10381 · Cited by 703 · see citing works
Vreven, T., Moal, I. H., Vangone, A., Pierce, B. G., Kastritis, P. L., Torchala, M., Chaleil, R., Jiménez-García, B., Bates, P. A., Fernandez-Recio, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants
Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A., & Pierce, B. G. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.23.465575 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Tubiana, J., Schneidman-Duhovny, D., & Wolfson, H. J. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01490-7 · Cited by 274 · see citing works
Improved Docking of Protein Models by a Combination of Alphafold2 and ClusPro
Ghani, U., Desta, I., Jindal, A., Khan, O., Jones, G., Hashemi, N., Kotelnikov, S., Padhorny, D., Vajda, S., & Kozakov, D. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.07.459290 · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Deep Learning of High-Order Interactions for Protein Interface Prediction
Liu, Y., Yuan, H., Cai, L., & Ji, S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining · doi:10.1145/3394486.3403110 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Chu, L., Ruffolo, J. A., Harmalkar, A., & Gray, J. J.
- Affiliations
- Johns Hopkins University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gray, Jeffrey J.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2024-01-23
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- e4862-e4862
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- PMC
- PMC10804679
- OpenAlex
- W4390245367
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 14
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 3.62
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Funders
- Johns Hopkins University
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM008403, R35GM141881, T32GM135131)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein-protein docking, flexible docking, structure-based virtual screening, immune complexes
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review