ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2026
Enhancing virtual screening of cystathionine β-synthase inhibitors: benchmarking target-specific machine-learning scoring functions against state-of-the-art AI docking and co-folding approaches.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Structure-aware artificial intelligence for next-generation drug discovery: from protein-ligand modeling to generative biomolecular design.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cystathionine β-synthase (CBS) has emerged as an important therapeutic target implicated in cancer and Down syndrome, yet the discovery of selective CBS inhibitors remains challenging due to limited structural diversity of known ligands and the scarcity of target-focused virtual screening (VS) benchmarks. In this study, we present the first comprehensive evaluation of CBS-specific artificial intelligence (AI) models for structure-based VS, supported by a carefully curated and up-to-date data set of experimentally validated CBS inhibitors, true inactives and decoys. Using this data set, we developed CBS-specific binary classification models trained on docking-derived features and evaluated them in a rigorous five-fold cross-validation framework that employed similarity-controlled splits, ensuring structural independence between training and test sets while minimizing intra-fold class bias. Predictive performance was assessed primarily using the normalized enrichment factor of true actives at 1% (NEF1%) alongside balanced accuracy. Across all folds, the CBS-specific AI models demonstrated consistently high screening power and robust classification performance. Importantly, we benchmarked their performance against a diverse panel of 16 established VS pipelines, including widely adopted docking-based scoring schemes, modern deep-learning (DL) docking tools, and recent co-folding approaches for protein-ligand binding prediction. The CBS-specific AI classifiers substantially outperformed these state-of-the-art (SOTA) methods in early enrichment (NEF1% = 0.764 ± 0.191), highlighting the advantage of target-focused training for VS tasks. Our results further reveal that generic DL docking and co-folding approaches struggle to achieve reliable screening performance when applied to targets under-represented in or entirely absent from their training data, as appears to be the case for CBS. This finding underscores a key limitation of broadly trained foundation-style models in prospective drug discovery campaigns involving less-studied proteins. Overall, this work reinforces the benefits of target-specific AI scoring models tailored to individual proteins, highlights the value of high-quality curated data sets for such efforts, and provides practical guidance for selecting VS strategies in case of data-limited targets. To promote transparency and reproducibility, all input and output files, curated data sets and source code are freely available via GitHub and Zenodo.
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.