PoseBusters: AI-based docking methods fail to generate physically valid poses or generalise to novel sequences

被引:96
作者
Buttenschoen, Martin [1 ]
Morris, Garrett M. [1 ]
Deane, Charlotte M. [1 ]
机构
[1] Dept Stat, 24-29 St Giles, Oxford OX1 3LB, England
关键词
PROTEIN-LIGAND DOCKING; GENETIC ALGORITHM; PROGRAMS;
D O I
10.1039/d3sc04185a
中图分类号
O6 [化学];
学科分类号
0703 ;
摘要
The last few years have seen the development of numerous deep learning-based protein-ligand docking methods. They offer huge promise in terms of speed and accuracy. However, despite claims of state-of-the-art performance in terms of crystallographic root-mean-square deviation (RMSD), upon closer inspection, it has become apparent that they often produce physically implausible molecular structures. It is therefore not sufficient to evaluate these methods solely by RMSD to a native binding mode. It is vital, particularly for deep learning-based methods, that they are also evaluated on steric and energetic criteria. We present PoseBusters, a Python package that performs a series of standard quality checks using the well-established cheminformatics toolkit RDKit. The PoseBusters test suite validates chemical and geometric consistency of a ligand including its stereochemistry, and the physical plausibility of intra- and intermolecular measurements such as the planarity of aromatic rings, standard bond lengths, and protein-ligand clashes. Only methods that both pass these checks and predict native-like binding modes should be classed as having "state-of-the-art" performance. We use PoseBusters to compare five deep learning-based docking methods (DeepDock, DiffDock, EquiBind, TankBind, and Uni-Mol) and two well-established standard docking methods (AutoDock Vina and CCDC Gold) with and without an additional post-prediction energy minimisation step using a molecular mechanics force field. We show that both in terms of physical plausibility and the ability to generalise to examples that are distinct from the training data, no deep learning-based method yet outperforms classical docking tools. In addition, we find that molecular mechanics force fields contain docking-relevant physics missing from deep-learning methods. PoseBusters allows practitioners to assess docking and molecular generation methods and may inspire new inductive biases still required to improve deep learning-based methods, which will help drive the development of more accurate and more realistic predictions. PoseBusters assesses molecular poses using steric and energetic criteria. We find that classical protein-ligand docking tools currently still outperform deep learning-based methods.
引用
收藏
页码:3130 / 3139
页数:10
相关论文
共 45 条
[1]   The Protein Data Bank [J].
Berman, HM ;
Westbrook, J ;
Feng, Z ;
Gilliland, G ;
Bhat, TN ;
Weissig, H ;
Shindyalov, IN ;
Bourne, PE .
NUCLEIC ACIDS RESEARCH, 2000, 28 (01) :235-242
[2]   Can We Still Trust Docking Results? An Extension of the Applicability of DockBench on PDBbind Database [J].
Bolcato, Giovanni ;
Cuzzolin, Alberto ;
Bissaro, Maicol ;
Moro, Stefano ;
Sturlese, Mattia .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MOLECULAR SCIENCES, 2019, 20 (14)
[3]   Improving Force Field Accuracy by Training against Condensed-Phase Mixture Properties [J].
Boothroyd, Simon ;
Madin, Owen C. ;
Mobley, David L. ;
Wang, Lee-Ping ;
Chodera, John D. ;
Shirts, Michael R. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL THEORY AND COMPUTATION, 2022, :3577-3592
[4]   MMTF-An efficient file format for the transmission, visualization, and analysis of macromolecular structures [J].
Bradley, Anthony R. ;
Rose, Alexander S. ;
Pavelka, Antonin ;
Valasatava, Yana ;
Duarte, Jose M. ;
Prlic, Andreas ;
Rose, Peter W. .
PLOS COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY, 2017, 13 (06)
[5]   GuacaMol: Benchmarking Models for de Novo Molecular Design [J].
Brown, Nathan ;
Fiscato, Marco ;
Segler, Marwin H. S. ;
Vaucher, Alain C. .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2019, 59 (03) :1096-1108
[6]   Alternative Quality Assessment Strategy to Compare Performances of GPCR-Ligand Docking Protocols: The Human Adenosine A2A Receptor as a Case Study [J].
Ciancetta, Antonella ;
Cuzzolin, Alberto ;
Moro, Stefano .
JOURNAL OF CHEMICAL INFORMATION AND MODELING, 2014, 54 (08) :2243-2254
[7]   Biopython']python: freely available Python']Python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics [J].
Cock, Peter J. A. ;
Antao, Tiago ;
Chang, Jeffrey T. ;
Chapman, Brad A. ;
Cox, Cymon J. ;
Dalke, Andrew ;
Friedberg, Iddo ;
Hamelryck, Thomas ;
Kauff, Frank ;
Wilczynski, Bartek ;
de Hoon, Michiel J. L. .
BIOINFORMATICS, 2009, 25 (11) :1422-1423
[8]   Comparing protein-ligand docking programs is difficult [J].
Cole, JC ;
Murray, CW ;
Nissink, JWM ;
Taylor, RD ;
Taylor, R .
PROTEINS-STRUCTURE FUNCTION AND BIOINFORMATICS, 2005, 60 (03) :325-332
[9]  
Corso G., 2023, INT C LEARNING REPRE
[10]  
de Ruyck Jerome, 2016, Adv Appl Bioinform Chem, V9, P1, DOI 10.2147/AABC.S105289