PreprintCited by 8Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsProtein Degradation and Inhibitors

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

ArtiDock: accurate Machine Learning approach to protein-ligand docking optimized for high-throughput virtual screening

Open access
Voitsitskyi, Taras, Koleiev, Ihor, Stratiichuk, Roman, Kot, Oleksandr, Kyrylenko, Roman, Savchenko, Illia, Husak, Vladyslav, Yesylevskyy, Semen, Starosyla, Sergii, Nafiiev, Alan·2024·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Preprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c02777

Abstract

Classical protein-ligand docking has been a cornerstone technique in computational drug discovery for decades, but has reached an accuracy and performance plateau. Recently introduced Machine Learning (ML) based docking methods offer a promising paradigm shift, but their practical adoption is hampered by accuracy-to-speed trade-offs, inadequate benchmarking standards, and questionable chemical validity of predicted poses. In this study, we introduce ArtiDock - an ML-based docking technique optimized for high-throughput virtual screening applications. To evaluate ArtiDock, we developed a dedicated performance and accuracy benchmark for pocket-specific rigid protein-ligand docking, which mimics realistic industrial drug discovery scenarios and is based on the novel PLINDER dataset. We demonstrate that ArtiDock is 29-38% more accurate in comparison to leading open-source and commercial classical docking techniques such as AutoDock, Vina, and Glide, while providing a low computational cost. ArtiDock notably excels in challenging docking scenarios involving unbound protein structures and binding sites containing ions and structured water molecules. Our results show that ArtiDock could be considered as a method of choice in high-throughput virtual screening scenarios.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2024.03.14.585019

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

1 General scheme of ArtiDock model architecture and inference pipeline.
1 General scheme of ArtiDock model architecture and inference pipeline.CC BY · PubMed Central
2 Classical docking top-ranked pose RMSD median (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score median (larger is better) on PoseBusters data set (N = 306) when a cubic (Cube) box of varying sizes or a ligand-aligned bounding box (LABB) with varying dimension increments is used as pocket input.
2 Classical docking top-ranked pose RMSD median (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score median (larger is better) on PoseBusters data set (N = 306) when a cubic (Cube) box of varying sizes or a ligand-aligned bounding box (LABB) with varying dimension increments is used as pocket input.CC BY · PubMed Central
3 Violin plot of docking top-ranked pose RMSD (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score (larger is better) distributions on the PLINDER test data set (N = 675). The bars represent the first and third quantiles, solid and dashed lines inside the bars indicate median and mean values, respectively. The shape represents the distribution of the values (kernel density plot).
3 Violin plot of docking top-ranked pose RMSD (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score (larger is better) distributions on the PLINDER test data set (N = 675). The bars represent the first and third quantiles, solid and dashed lines inside the bars indicate median and mean values, respectively. The shape represents the distribution of the values (kernel density plot).CC BY · PubMed Central
4 Docking top-ranked pose RMSD median (Å, smaller is better), lDDT-PLI score median (larger is better), and PB-Valid fraction (larger is better) on the PLINDER test data subsets with no heteroatoms (N = 189), with cofactors (N = 23), with ions (N = 123), or ligand-bound water molecules (N = 403) in a binding pocket.
4 Docking top-ranked pose RMSD median (Å, smaller is better), lDDT-PLI score median (larger is better), and PB-Valid fraction (larger is better) on the PLINDER test data subsets with no heteroatoms (N = 189), with cofactors (N = 23), with ions (N = 123), or ligand-bound water molecules (N = 403) in a binding pocket.CC BY · PubMed Central
5 Violin plot of docking top-ranked pose RMSD (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score (larger is better) distributions on the PLINDER MLSB test data set (N = 344). The bars represent the first and third quantiles, solid and dashed lines inside the bars indicate median and mean values, respectively (box plot). The shape represents the spread of values for a given method (kernel density plot).
5 Violin plot of docking top-ranked pose RMSD (Å, smaller is better) and lDDT-PLI score (larger is better) distributions on the PLINDER MLSB test data set (N = 344). The bars represent the first and third quantiles, solid and dashed lines inside the bars indicate median and mean values, respectively (box plot). The shape represents the spread of values for a given method (kernel density plot).CC BY · PubMed Central
6 Performance of the docking and cofolding methods on the PoseX self-docking data set (N = 718).
6 Performance of the docking and cofolding methods on the PoseX self-docking data set (N = 718).CC BY · PubMed Central
7 Performance of the docking and cofolding methods on the PoseX cross-docking data set (N = 1312).
7 Performance of the docking and cofolding methods on the PoseX cross-docking data set (N = 1312).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 49

  1. 10.1002/jcc.21498 · DOI
  2. 10.4018/978-1-5225-1762-7.ch030 · DOI
  3. 10.1038/s42256-021-00409-9 · DOI
  4. 10.1101/2022.06.06.495043 · DOI
  5. 10.48550/arXiv.2202.05146 · DOI
  6. G. Zhou et al., “Uni-Mol: A Universal 3D Molecular Representation Learning Framework,” presented at the The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations, Sep 2022. Accessed: May 20, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=6K2RM6wVqKu · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1039/D3SC04185A · DOI
  8. 10.48550/arXiv.2210.01776 · DOI
  9. 10.48550/arXiv.2402.18396 · DOI
  10. 10.1126/science.adl2528 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.48550/arXiv.2412.10743 · DOI
  12. 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1101/2024.10.10.615955 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1101/2024.11.19.624167 · DOI
  15. 10.1101/2025.01.08.631967 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/prot.26605 · DOI
  17. 10.1101/2025.02.03.636309 · DOI
  18. 10.1101/2024.07.17.603955 · DOI
  19. 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1002/jcc.21256 · DOI
  21. 10.1002/pro.3934 · DOI
  22. 10.1021/acs.jctc.0c01006 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/jcc.21334 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00203 · DOI
  25. 10.1021/jm0306430 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1021/jm030644s · DOI
  27. 10.1021/jm051256o · DOI
  28. 10.1021/acs.jctc.1c00810 · DOI
  29. A. N. Jain , A. E. Cleves , and P. Walters , “Deep-Learning Based Docking Methods: Fair Comparisons to Conventional Docking Workflows,” arXiv. doi: 2412.02889.
  30. 10.1002/jcc.27536 · DOI
  31. 10.1002/prot.26601 · DOI
  32. 10.1107/S0907444913007051 · DOI
  33. 10.1038/s41598-017-09654-8 · DOI
  34. 10.1515/pac-2015-1204 · DOI
  35. J. Ingraham , V. Garg , R. Barzilay , and T. Jaakkola , “Generative Models for Graph-Based Protein Design,” in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, Curran Associates, Inc., 2019. Accessed: May 15, 2025. [Online]. Available: https://papers.nips.cc/paper_files/paper/2019/hash/f3a4ff4839c56a5f460c88cce3666a2b-Abstract.html
  36. 10.48550/ARXIV.1912.01703 · DOI · Paper page
  37. 10.48550/ARXIV.1903.02428 · DOI
  38. 10.48550/ARXIV.1905.12265 · DOI
  39. 10.48550/ARXIV.2009.01411 · DOI
  40. 10.48550/ARXIV.2106.03843 · DOI
  41. 10.1007/0-387-22742-3_18 · DOI
  42. 10.1021/ja00051a040 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/S0169-409X(00)00129-0 · DOI · Paper page
  44. 10.1002/prot.10465 · DOI
  45. 10.1002/jcc.23905 · DOI
  46. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv082 · DOI
  47. 10.1038/s41598-017-15571-7 · DOI
  48. 10.1021/ci300604z · DOI
  49. 10.1186/s13321-021-00522-2 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Voitsitskyi, T., Koleiev, I., Stratiichuk, R., Kot, O., Kyrylenko, R., Savchenko, I., Husak, V., Yesylevskyy, S., Starosyla, S., & Nafiiev, A.
Affiliations
  • National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (UA)
  • Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (UA)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Corresponding author
Yesylevskyy, Semen
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2024-03-16
Volume
66
Issue
4
Pages
2117-2128
ISSN
1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7126209960
Cited by
8
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2
FWCI
10.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • European Commission (MSCA4Ukraine, 101101923)
  • Ministerstvo Školství, Mládeže a Tělovýchovy (MSMT-355/2025-16)
  • National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (1.4. /218)
  • H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (101101923)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
Keywords
high-throughput virtual screening, rigid docking, computational cost
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Binding Sites, Ligands, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, High-Throughput Screening Assays, Molecular Docking Simulation

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