PreprintCited by 6Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsEnzyme Structure and Function

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sampling and ranking of protein conformations using machine learning techniques do not improve the quality of rigid protein-protein docking

Open access
Kyrylenko, Roman, Koleiev, Ihor, Savchenko, Illia, Voitsitskyi, Taras, Stratiichuk, Roman, Husak, Vladyslav, Yesylevskyy, Semen, Starosyla, Serhii, Nafiiev, Alan·2025·Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling

Preprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c01765 · Paper page

Abstract

Rigid docking remains the most popular method of predicting protein-protein interactions in cases when experimental 3D structures of the complexes are not available. The docking often relies on known unbound (Apo) protein structures, which may differ significantly from their bound (Holo) forms. Modern machine learning (ML) based conformational sampling techniques allow generating ensembles of functionally relevant protein structures, which may be closer to their Holo forms and thus could improve the outcomes of the classical rigid protein-protein docking. Here, we sampled conformations of the protein subunits in 30 complexes from the novel PINDER dataset with two state-of-the-art ML-based techniques and evaluated their docking performance using several physics-based, data-based, and ML-based scoring functions. We showed that such conformational sampling rarely produces structures that are closer to the Holo conformations than the corresponding Apo ones. Moreover, even when such conformations are generated, none of the tested scoring functions were able to prioritize and rank them correctly. Our work highlights critical limitations in the current ML-enhanced rigid protein-protein docking workflows and emphasizes the need for new approaches that can better utilize the potential of modern techniques for conformational generation and scoring.

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 · 10.1101/2025.05.13.652389

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Show all 4 references

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. 10.1038/s41392-020-00315-3 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Fionda V. Networks in Biology. In: Ranganathan S , Gribskov M , Nakai K , Schönbach C , editors. Encyclopedia of Bioinformatics and Computational Biology [Internet]. Oxford: Academic Press; 2019. p. 915–21. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128096338204202 · DOI
  3. 2017, Network analysis and in silico prediction of protein–protein interactions with applications in drug discovery, Carbohydr Feast Struct Glycobiol • Seq Topol Comput Stud Protein-Protein Interact, 44, 134
  4. 2014, Protein-Protein Interaction Detection: Methods and Analysis, Int J Proteomics, 1, 147648
  5. 2014, Modelling three-dimensional protein structures for applications in drug design, Theme Sect • Huntingt Dis Guest Ed Craig Blackstone • Exerc Physiol Guest Ed Pontus Almer Bostrom, 19, 890
  6. 10.1007/978-3-642-17907-5_13 · DOI
  7. 10.1016/j.tibs.2010.04.009 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1016/j.str.2020.06.006 · DOI
  9. 2015, Enhanced sampling techniques in molecular dynamics simulations of biological systems, Recent Dev Mol Dyn, 1850, 872
  10. 10.1038/s42003-025-07791-9 · DOI
  11. Wallner B . AFsample: improving multimer prediction with AlphaFold using massive sampling. Bioinformatics. 2023 Sep 1;39(9):btad573. · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1038/s41467-024-46715-9 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1038/S41596-020-0312-X · DOI
  14. Kovtun D , Akdel M , Goncearenco A , Zhou G , Holt G , Baugher D , et al. PINDER: The protein interaction dataset and evaluation resource [Internet]. bioRxiv; 2024 [cited 2025 Apr 23]. p. 2024.07.17.603980. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.17.603980v4 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41596-024-01011-0 · DOI
  16. 10.1038/s42256-023-00715-4 · DOI
  17. Sverrisson F , Feydy J , Correia BE , Bronstein MM. Fast end-to-end learning on protein surfaces [Internet]. Bioinformatics; 2020 [cited 2025 Apr 23]. Available from: http://biorxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2020.12.28.424589 · DOI
  18. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-431 · DOI
  19. 10.1038/nmeth.1818 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti125 · DOI
  21. 2024, OpenMM 8: Molecular Dynamics Simulation with Machine Learning Potentials, J Phys Chem B, 128, 109, 10.1021/acs.jpcb.3c06662 · DOI
  22. 10.1038/S41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1038/nbt.3988 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Visani GM , Galvin W , Pun MN , Nourmohammad A. H-Packer: Holographic Rotationally Equivariant Convolutional Neural Network for Protein Side-Chain Packing [Internet]. arXiv; 2023 [cited 2025 May 1]. Available from: http://arxiv.org/abs/2311.09312 · arXiv
  25. 10.1021/ct100578z · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.physa.2021.126433 · DOI
  27. 10.1002/jcc.27536 · DOI
  28. 10.1002/prot.25870 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/prot.25838 · DOI · Paper page
  30. 10.1002/prot.26222 · DOI
  31. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz437 · DOI
  32. 10.1002/prot.21495 · DOI
  33. Evans R , O’Neill M , Pritzel A , Antropova N , Senior A , Green T , et al. Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer [Internet]. bioRxiv; 2021 [cited 2025 Apr 23]. p. 2021.10.04.463034. Available from: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034v1 · DOI
  34. 10.1002/prot.10381 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · DOI · Paper page
  36. 10.1186/s12859-024-05991-4 · DOI
  37. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001870 · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Kyrylenko, R., Koleiev, I., Savchenko, I., Voitsitskyi, T., Stratiichuk, R., Husak, V., Yesylevskyy, S., Starosyla, S., & Nafiiev, A.
Affiliations
  • Receptor.AI Inc., 20-22 Wenlock Road, London N1 7GU, United Kingdom
  • National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (UA)
  • Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (UA)
  • University of Trento (IT)
Corresponding author
Kyrylenko, Roman
Venue
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2025-05-16
Volume
65
Issue
19
Pages
10167-10179
ISSN
1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4414250097
Cited by
6
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1
FWCI
1.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport of the Czech Republic (MSMT-355/2025-16)
  • European Union (MSCA4Ukraine project 101101923)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
Keywords
conformational sampling, protein-protein interaction, docking scoring functions, protein complex structure prediction, conformational ensembles
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins, 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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Sampling and ranking of protein conformations using machine learning techniques do not improve the quality of rigid protein-protein docking. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1101/2025.05.13.652389
The paper
Kyrylenko, R., Koleiev, I., Savchenko, I., Voitsitskyi, T., Stratiichuk, R., Husak, V., Yesylevskyy, S., Starosyla, S., & Nafiiev, A. (2025). Sampling and ranking of protein conformations using machine learning techniques do not improve the quality of rigid protein-protein docking. Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.05.13.652389