ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Deep learning in GPCR drug discovery: benchmarking the path to accurate peptide binding.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- DeorphaNN: Virtual screening of GPCR peptide agonists using AlphaFold-predicted active-state complexes and deep learning embeddings.Molecular cell · 2026Article
- Peptide-based drug design using generative AI.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2026Review
- Prompt-based multimodal representation learning for drug repurposing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Recent trends in machine learning and deep learning-based prediction of G-protein coupled receptor-ligand binding affinities.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Review
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
Deep learning (DL) methods have drastically advanced structure-based drug discovery by directly predicting protein structures from sequences. Recently, these methods have become increasingly accurate in predicting complexes formed by multiple protein chains. We evaluated these advancements to predict and accurately model the largest receptor family and its cognate peptide hormones. We benchmarked DL tools, including AlphaFold 2.3 (AF2), AlphaFold 3 (AF3), Chai-1, NeuralPLexer, RoseTTAFold-AllAtom, Peptriever, ESMFold, and D-SCRIPT, to predict interactions between G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) and their endogenous peptide ligands. Our results showed that structure-aware models outperformed language models in peptide binding classification, with the top-performing model achieving an area under the curve of 0.86 on a benchmark set of 124 ligands and 1240 decoys. Rescoring predicted structures on local interactions further improved the principal ligand discovery among decoy peptides, whereas DL-based approaches did not. We explored a competitive tournament approach for modeling multiple peptides simultaneously on a single GPCR, which accelerates the performance but reduces true-positive recovery. When evaluating the binding poses of 67 recent complexes, AF2 reproduced the correct binding modes in nearly all cases (94%), surpassing those of both AF3 and Chai-1. Confidence scores correlate with structural binding mode accuracy, which provides a guide for interpreting interface predictions. These results demonstrated that DL models can reliably rediscover peptide binders, aid peptide drug discovery, and guide the selection of optimal tools for GPCR-targeted therapies. To this end, we provided a practical guide for selecting the best models for specific applications and an independent benchmarking set for future model evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.