Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40428123›Full record

ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025

StructureNet: Physics-Informed Hybridized Deep Learning Framework for Protein-Ligand Binding Affinity Prediction.

Arjun Kaneriya, Madhav Samudrala, Harrish Ganesh, James Moran, Somanath Dandibhotla, Sivanesan Dakshanamurthy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

6 authors.

Arjun KaneriyaCollege of William and Mary, School of Computing, Data Sciences & Physics, Williamsburg, VA 23185, USA.
Madhav SamudralaCollege of Arts and Sciences, The University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903, USA.
Harrish GaneshVCU Life Sciences, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA 22043, USA.
James MoranCollege of Arts and Sciences, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057, USA.
Somanath DandibhotlaCollege of Engineering and Computing, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-0616-5906
Sivanesan DakshanamurthyDepartment of Oncology, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20007, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3681-4121

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurately predicting protein-ligand binding affinity is an important step in the drug discovery process. Deep learning (DL) methods have improved binding affinity prediction by using diverse categories of molecular data. However, many models rely heavily on interaction and sequence data, which impedes proper learning and limits performance in de novo applications. To address these limitations, we developed a novel graph neural network model, called StructureNet (structure-based graph neural network), to predict protein-ligand binding affinity. StructureNet improves existing DL methods by focusing entirely on structural descriptors to mitigate data memorization issues introduced by sequence and interaction data. StructureNet represents the protein and ligand structures as graphs, which are processed using a GNN-based ensemble deep learning model. StructureNet achieved a PCC of 0.68 and an AUC of 0.75 on the PDBBind v.2020 Refined Set, outperforming similar structure-based models. External validation on the DUDE-Z dataset showed that StructureNet can effectively distinguish between active and decoy ligands. Further testing on a small subset of well-known drugs indicates that StructureNet has high potential for rapid virtual screening applications. We also hybridized StructureNet with interaction- and sequence-based models to investigate their impact on testing accuracy and found minimal difference (0.01 PCC) between merged models and StructureNet as a standalone model. An ablation study found that geometric descriptors were the key drivers of model performance, with their removal leading to a PCC decrease of over 15.7%. Lastly, we tested StructureNet on ensembles of binding complex conformers generated using molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and found that incorporating multiple conformations of the same complex often improves model accuracy by capturing binding site flexibility. Overall, the results show that structural data alone are sufficient for binding affinity predictions and can address pattern recognition challenges introduced by sequence and interaction features. Additionally, structural representations of protein-ligand complexes can be considerably improved using geometric and topological descriptors. We made StructureNet GUI interface freely available online.

Indexed as

drug discoverymachine learningprotein–ligand binding affinitystructure-based graph neural network

Identifiers

PMID40428123
PMCPMC12109334

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.