ArticleScientific reports2026
Integrating deep learning with physics based modeling enables high precision antibody antigen interface prediction.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate antibody-antigen (Ab-Ag) docking is hindered by CDR flexibility, discontinuous epitopes, and the absence of reliable binding-site restraints. This study presents a deep learning-augmented docking framework that integrates ParaDeep, a sequence-based paratope predictor, with the PyDockWEB scoring engine to provides a practical and interpretable framework for guiding docking using sequence-derived paratopes. ParaDeep predicts binding residues directly from concatenated VH/VL sequences, and these residues are used as spatial restraints within the PyDockWEB pipeline. Across 50 Ab-Ag complexes from AACDB, DL-guided targeted docking improved performance for the majority of cases relative to blind docking. Interface RMSD decreased overall (median 10.171 Å to 1.193 Å, p = 0.0016), and TM-score proximity showed a significant shift toward native folds (p = 0.0256). DockQ distributions exhibited a clear rightward shift, with median scores increasing from 0.0523 to 0.6799 and 46% of targeted models reaching high-quality classification. Structural analysis indicated that high-DockQ interfaces were more hydrophilic (–1.33 ± 0.52 vs. − 0.56 ± 0.88, p = 0.037) and enriched in coil regions, suggesting that moderate flexibility and polar complementarity may be associated with near-native docking convergence. Cross-metric analysis evaluated strong agreement between TM-score and DockQ (ρ = 0.854 for targeted vs. 0.782 for blind), indicating concurrent improvements in interface and global accuracy. Importantly, paratope-size correlation analyses showed no association with docking accuracy, whereas re-analysis of initially misclassified models using AppA-derived paratopes recovered most models, suggesting that the spatial precision of predicted restraint placement is a major contributor to docking outcomes in this rigid-body setting, while restraint count alone is not informative. In summary, ParaDeep-guided docking provides a practical and interpretable framework for integrating DL-derived paratope information into a physics-based docking framework. Rather than introducing a new docking paradigm, this work suggests that DL-derived residue-level priors can improve the efficiency and accuracy of rigid-body Ab-Ag docking on average, while retaining physical transparency and mechanistic interpretability. The framework offers a scalable and biologically informed complement to blind docking, with potential for integration into iterative antibody design and structure-guided immune-engineering workflows.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.