Generalizable compound protein interaction prediction with a model incorporating protein structure aware and compound property aware language model representations
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Compound–protein interaction (CPI) prediction plays a crucial role in drug discovery by aiding the identification of binding and affinities between small molecules and proteins. Current deep learning models rely heavily on sequence-based representations and suffer from a lack of labeled data, which restricts their accuracy and generalizability. To overcome these challenges, we propose GenSPARC (a model with Gen eralized S tructure- and P roperty- A ware R epresentations of protein and chemical language models for C PI prediction), a deep learning model that leverages structure-aware protein representations derived from AlphaFold2 predictions and FoldSeek’s three-dimensional interaction alphabet. Compound features were extracted using graph convolutional networks and a pretrained chemical language model, thereby ensuring comprehensive multimodal representation. An attention mechanism further enhanced interaction modeling by capturing intricate binding patterns. GenSPARC was validated successfully with multiple CPI benchmark datasets, demonstrating strong generalizability across challenging data splits and competitive results in virtual screening tasks. Therefore, GenSPARC will substantially advance artificial intelligence-driven drug discovery.
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
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · cited 2× · see citing works
“A potential strategy is to use predicted interactions as constraints in complex structure prediction models such as AlphaFold3 57 or Boltz-1 58 , enabling the generation of plausible complex structures consistent with GenSPARC ’ s predictions, which can then be further re fi ned to the level of molecular dynamics.”
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
Graph Convolutional Neural Networks for Predicting Drug-Target Interactions
Torng, W., & Altman, R. B. (2019) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00628 · Cited by 371 · see citing works
Explainable Deep Relational Networks for Predicting Compound-Protein Affinities and Contacts
Karimi, M., Wu, D., Wang, Z., & Shen, Y. (2019) · doi:10.1101/2019.12.28.890103 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
A Folding-Docking-Affinity framework for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction
Wu, M.-H., Xie, Z., & Zhi, D. (2025) · Communications Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s42004-025-01506-1 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Zhang, Y., Ishitani, R., Takemoto, M., & Tomita, A.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Science Tokyo (JP)
- Preferred Networks (Japan) (JP)
- Corresponding author
- Tomita, Atsuhiro
- Venue
- Communications Chemistry
- Published
- 2025-12-19
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 37-37
- ISSN
- 2399-3669 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12823658
- OpenAlex
- W4417479088
- Cited by
- 1
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1
- FWCI
- 0.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Communications Chemistry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Topics
- 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
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Interaction Studies and Fluorescence Analysis
- Keywords
- compound-protein interaction prediction, protein-ligand binding affinity, chemical language models, AlphaFold2, graph convolutional networks, multimodal representation, attention mechanism, virtual screening, drug discovery
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