Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38425520›Full record

ArticleChemical science2024

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

Martin Buttenschoen, Garrett M Morris, Charlotte M Deane

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chemical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 205 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
205citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

205 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. EasyDock 1.3: An Automated Pipeline for Molecular Docking.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Article
  19. Review
  20. Review

145 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Martin ButtenschoenDepartment of Statistics 24-29 St Giles' Oxford OX1 3LB UK deane@stats.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5455-4207
Garrett M MorrisDepartment of Statistics 24-29 St Giles' Oxford OX1 3LB UK deane@stats.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1731-8405
Charlotte M DeaneDepartment of Statistics 24-29 St Giles' Oxford OX1 3LB UK deane@stats.ox.ac.uk.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1388-2252

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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.

Identifiers

PMID38425520
PMCPMC10901501

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.