Large-scale prospective evaluation of co-folding across hundreds of Mac1–ligand complexes and three virtual screens

Abstract Accurate prediction of ligand-bound protein complexes and ranking them by affinity are central problems in drug discovery. While deep learning co-folding methods can help address these challenges, their evaluation has been hampered by the difficulties in assessing independence from training data and insufficiently large test sets. Here we test the ability of co-folding methods to predict the structures of 551 ligands, 489 of which are of sufficient quality for evaluation, bound to the SARS-CoV-2 NSP3 macrodomain (Mac1) that were determined after the training cut-off dates. AlphaFold3 (AF3), Boltz-2, and Chai-1 each reproduced >50% of the Mac1 ligand poses to better than 2 Å RMSD of experiment. Despite the potential for co-folding to describe protein conformational changes that stabilize ligand binding, we did not find that common conformational rearrangements, including peptide flip and a large loop opening, were recapitulated by the co-folding prediction. For AF3 and Chai-1, ligand pose prediction confidence weakly, but significantly, tracked experimental potency, while DOCK3.7 energies were only weakly correlated. Boltz-2 affinity predictions showed the strongest correlation with measured potency and, after calibration, achieved lower mean absolute error than a baseline predictor. We next assessed whether co-folding scores could rescore docking hit-lists to distinguish true ligands from non-binders among hundreds of molecules prospectively experimentally tested against AmpC β-lactamase, the dopamine D4 and the σ 2 receptors. AF3 ligand pose confidence values did not separate true ligands from high-scoring false-positives as effectively as docking scores or Boltz-2 affinity predictions did. Taken together, the modest, but independent correlations of docking score and co-folding confidence or affinity suggests that integrating physics-based and deep-learning and approaches may help with hit prioritization and subsequent optimization in structure-based ligand discovery.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
eLife
Published
2026-10-12
DOI
https://doi.org/10.7554/elife.110475.3
Citations
7
Primary Topic
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
24.95

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Large-scale prospective evaluation of co-folding across hundreds of Mac1–ligand complexes and three virtual screens

Brian K. Shoichet, Morgan E. Diolaiti, Rashad L. Reid, Nevan J. Krogan et al.
7 citations
eLife
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
24.95
article

Large-scale prospective evaluation of co-folding across hundreds of Mac1–ligand complexes and three virtual screens

Brian K. Shoichet, Morgan E. Diolaiti, Rashad L. Reid, Nevan J. Krogan, Yagmur Umay Doruk, Ryan L. Gonciarz, G.J. Correy, Adam R. Renslo, James S. Fraser, Takaya Togo, Alan Ashworth, John K. Fraser, R. Jeffrey Neitz, Olivier Mailhot, Moira M. Rachman, Eric R. Hantz, Saumya Gopalkrishnan, Priyadarshini Jaishankar, Maisie GV Stevens, Brendan W. Hall, Maisie G. V. Stevens, Adam R Renslo, Jongbin Kim, Brian K. Shoichet, R. Jeffrey Neitz, Nevan J. Krogan, Alan Ashworth
article en
7 citations

Abstract

Abstract Accurate prediction of ligand-bound protein complexes and ranking them by affinity are central problems in drug discovery. While deep learning co-folding methods can help address these challenges, their evaluation has been hampered by the difficulties in assessing independence from training data and insufficiently large test sets. Here we test the ability of co-folding methods to predict the structures of 551 ligands, 489 of which are of sufficient quality for evaluation, bound to the SARS-CoV-2 NSP3 macrodomain (Mac1) that were determined after the training cut-off dates. AlphaFold3 (AF3), Boltz-2, and Chai-1 each reproduced >50% of the Mac1 ligand poses to better than 2 Å RMSD of experiment. Despite the potential for co-folding to describe protein conformational changes that stabilize ligand binding, we did not find that common conformational rearrangements, including peptide flip and a large loop opening, were recapitulated by the co-folding prediction. For AF3 and Chai-1, ligand pose prediction confidence weakly, but significantly, tracked experimental potency, while DOCK3.7 energies were only weakly correlated. Boltz-2 affinity predictions showed the strongest correlation with measured potency and, after calibration, achieved lower mean absolute error than a baseline predictor. We next assessed whether co-folding scores could rescore docking hit-lists to distinguish true ligands from non-binders among hundreds of molecules prospectively experimentally tested against AmpC β-lactamase, the dopamine D4 and the σ 2 receptors. AF3 ligand pose confidence values did not separate true ligands from high-scoring false-positives as effectively as docking scores or Boltz-2 affinity predictions did. Taken together, the modest, but independent correlations of docking score and co-folding confidence or affinity suggests that integrating physics-based and deep-learning and approaches may help with hit prioritization and subsequent optimization in structure-based ligand discovery.

eLifeVol. 15
Gladstone Institutes (US), University of California, San Francisco (US), Quantitative BioSciences (US), University of California San Francisco Medical Center (US), UCSF Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center (US)
U.S. Department of Energy, AstraZeneca, Relay Therapeutics, Maze Therapeutics, Scheme for Promotion of Academic and Research Collaboration, National Institutes of Health, Genentech, Office of Science, National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Basic Energy Sciences, Biological and Environmental Research, SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Computational Drug Discovery Methods
24.95
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.