ReviewChemical communications (Cambridge, England)2026
Peptide-protein docking: from physics-based models to generative intelligence.
Review in Chemical communications (Cambridge, England), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Antimicrobial peptides as computational candidates for SARS-CoV-2 papain-like protease inhibition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Strategic Template Filtering Accelerates Fragment-Based Peptide Docking.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
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
Peptide-protein interactions (PepPIs) play a pivotal role in cellular signaling and regulation, representing a significant category of therapeutic agents. However, determining peptide-protein complex structures by experiment is costly and often challenging. Computational peptide-protein complex structure prediction, therefore, plays an important role in mapping binding modes and guiding design. Classical pipelines combine template-based, local, or global docking conformational search algorithms with physics-based or empirical scoring, but they often struggle with highly flexible peptides, induced fit at shallow interfaces, and non-canonical chemistries. In this review, we describe an ongoing shift from such conventional search-and-score workflows to deep learning-based pipelines. We categorize the modern methods into three modules: (i) approaches that predict likely peptide-binding regions on the protein surface and use these predictions to guide or filter docking models; (ii) AlphaFold-based protocols that use general structure prediction methods for peptide-protein co-folding and refinement; and (iii) deep generative models that sample peptide conformations given a target protein structure. We highlight that recent methods have substantially improved the accuracy and applicability of peptide-protein docking, while also identifying shared remaining challenges, including limited avaiability of training data and weak performance on long, disordered, or chemically modified peptides. We conclude by outlining directions for integrating richer biophysical constraints, better-curated peptide-protein datasets, and large-scale generative models to move toward robust, design-ready peptide docking.
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.