IP Library › Granted Patent US 12,633,373
Granted Patent B2
US 12,633,373 · App. 18/000,264 · Granted May 19, 2026

Systems and methods to predict structures and properties of biomolecule-ligand complexes and uses thereof

Inventors: Ron O. Dror (Stanford, CA); Joseph M. Paggi (Stanford, CA)
Assignee: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University
G16B15/30G06N5/022G16B40/20
View Patent ↗
Loading inventors, assignments & file history…
Monitor This Case
Get email alerts when status or documents change.
Order Certified Copies
Most orders are placed with the USPTO same day — all within 24 business hours.
Order via The Patent Place →
Pre-filled with this patent's details
Quick Facts
Patent No.
US 12,633,373
App. No.
18/000,264
Granted
May 19, 2026
Kind
B2
Abstract

Embodiments herein describe systems and methods to predict biomolecule-ligand complexes and uses thereof. Many embodiments generate candidate poses and docking scores for ligands known to interact with a target protein as well as a candidate ligand. Based on similarities present in the candidate poses and docking scores, a pose for the candidate ligand is identified. Many embodiments determine whether a candidate ligand can bind to a target and, if so, determine an affinity. Many embodiments can be used for virtual screening or lead optimization.

Claims (76)

1 . A method for predicting ligand-protein interaction comprising:

obtaining a set of ligands known to bind to a target protein;

generating a set of candidate poses for each ligand in the set of ligands and a candidate ligand; and

determining a pose for the candidate ligand based on a similarity of the candidate poses for the candidate ligand and the candidate poses for each ligand in the set of ligands;

wherein the similarity is based on pairwise comparisons between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands and pairwise comparisons between the candidate ligand and every ligand in the set of ligands.

2 . The method of claim 1 , wherein generating a set of candidate poses is accomplished by docking at least one ligand from the set of ligands using docking software.

3 . The method of claim 1 , wherein at least one ligand in the set of ligands has an experimentally determined pose; and wherein the pose for the at least one ligand is set to the experimentally determined pose.

4 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the similarity is further based on pairwise comparisons of substructures between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands and pairwise comparisons between the candidate ligand and every ligand in the set of ligands.

5 . The method of claim 1 , wherein the similarity is further based on pairwise comparisons of a protein-ligand interaction between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands and pairwise comparisons between the candidate ligand and every ligand in the set of ligands.

6 . The method of claim 1 , wherein determining a pose for the candidate ligand comprises determining a pose for each ligand in the set of ligands that minimizes the potential of all ligands.

7 . The method of claim 6 , wherein the potential is determined by:

E

⁡

(

L

)

=

(

n

-

1

)

⁢

E

dock

(

L

)

+

E

pairwise

(

L

)

,

where L=( 1 , . . . , n ) indexes the candidate poses for each ligand, n is the number of ligands, E dock represents the standard docking scores for the set of ligand poses, and E pairwise represents a pairwise contribution to the total score.

8 . The method of claim 7 , wherein E pairwise ((L)=Σ (i,j),i≠j e pairwise ( i , j ).

9 . A method for virtual screening, comprising:

obtaining a set of ligands known to bind to a target protein;

determining a pose for each ligand in the set of ligands by generating a set of candidate poses for ligands in the set of ligands, wherein the pose is based on a similarity of the candidate poses for each ligand in the set of ligands; and

determining a binding affinity of at least one candidate ligand by determining whether the candidate ligands binds to the target protein based on similarities to each ligand in the set of ligands and determining an energy if the candidate ligand binds to the target ligand;

wherein the similarity is based on pairwise comparisons between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands.

10 . The method of claim 9 , wherein determining a binding affinity of a candidate ligand determines a binding affinity of at least two candidate ligands; the method further comprising obtaining a library of candidate ligands, wherein determining a binding affinity of at least one candidate ligand determines a binding affinity of at least one candidate ligand in the library of candidate ligands.

11 . The method of claim 9 , further comprising fixing a pose for each ligand in the set of ligands prior to determining a binding affinity of at least one candidate ligand.

12 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the similarities are further based on pairwise comparisons of substructures between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands and pairwise comparisons between the candidate ligand and every ligand in the set of ligands.

13 . The method of claim 9 , wherein the similarities are further based on pairwise comparisons of a protein-ligand interaction between each ligand in the set of ligands and every other ligand in the set of ligands and pairwise comparisons between the candidate ligand and every ligand in the set of ligands.

14 . The method of claim 9 , wherein determining a pose for the candidate ligand comprises determining a pose for each ligand in the set of ligands that minimizes the potential of all ligands.

15 . The method of claim 14 wherein the potential is determined by:

E

⁡

(

L

)

=

(

n

-

1

)

⁢

E

dock

(

L

)

+

E

pairwise

(

L

)

,

where L=( 1 , . . . , n ) indexes the candidate poses for each ligand, n is the number of ligands, E dock represents the standard docking scores for the set of ligand poses, and E pairwise represents a pairwise contribution to the total score.

16 . The method of claim 15 , wherein E pairwise (L)=Σ (i,j),i≠j e pairwise ( i , j ).

17 . The method of claim 7 , wherein e pairwise is determined using a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is fit to a benchmark set of pairs of correct poses and pairs of incorrect poses for a diverse set of proteins.

18 . The method of claim 15 , wherein e pairwise is determined using a machine learning algorithm, wherein the machine learning algorithm is fit to a benchmark set of pairs of correct poses and pairs of incorrect poses for a diverse set of proteins.

Assignments (1)
ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNOR'S INTEREST Recorded Aug 30, 2023
From: DROR, RON O.; PAGGI, JOSEPH M.
To: THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY
Reel/Frame 064754/0921 →
Continuity (2)
Provisional Application 63031957 · May 29, 2020
Related Publication 20230245713A1 · Aug 3, 2023
References Cited (63)
US 8150634B1 · Constantine · 2012 [cited by examiner]
US 11450407B1 · Laniado · 2022 [cited by examiner]
US 12027235B1 · El Hibouri · 2024 [cited by examiner]
US 12367329B1 · Candido · 2025 [cited by examiner]
US 12368503B2 · Prasad · 2025 [cited by examiner]
US 20100112724A1 · Tovbin et al. · 2010 [cited by applicant]
US 20110112818A1 · Goddard, III et al. · 2011 [cited by applicant]
US 20180141958A1 · Morikis · 2018 [cited by examiner]
US 20190369097A1 · Fiser et al. · 2019 [cited by applicant]
US 20200143911A1 · Juraszek · 2020 [cited by examiner]
US 20230034425A1 · Laniado · 2023 [cited by examiner]
US 20230245713A1 · Dror · 2023 [cited by examiner]
WO 2021243097A1 · 2021 [cited by applicant]
International Preliminary Report on Patentability for International Application No. PCT/US2021/034637, Report issued Nov. 17, 2022, Mailed on Dec. 8, 2022, 7 pgs. [cited by applicant]
International Search Report and Written Opinion for International Application No. PCT/US2021/034637, Search completed Aug. 25, 2021, Mailed Sep. 30, 2021, 14 pgs. [cited by applicant]
Allen et al., “DOCK 6: Impact of New Features and Current Docking Performance”, Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 36, No. 15, Jun. 5, 2015, pp. 1132-1156, doi: 10.1002/jcc.23905. [cited by applicant]
Bajusz et al., “Why is Tanimoto index an appropriate choice for fingerprint-based similarity calculations?”, Journal of Cheminformatics, vol. 7, No. 20, May 20, 2015, pp. 1-13, doi: 10.1186/s13321-015-0069-3. [cited by applicant]
Bissantz et al., “A Medicinal Chemist's Guide to Molecular Interactions”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 53, No. 14, Mar. 26, 2010, pp. 5061-5084, doi: 10.1021/jm100112j. [cited by applicant]
Cherkasov et al., “QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to?”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 57, No. 12, Dec. 18, 2013, pp. 4977-5010, doi: 10.1021/jm4004285. [cited by applicant]
Chupakhin et al., “Predicting ligand binding modes from neural networks trained on protein-ligand interaction fingerprints”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 53, No. 4, Mar. 12, 2013, pp. 763-772, doi:… [cited by applicant]
Cleves et al., “Electrostatic-field and surface-shape similarity for virtual screening and pose prediction”, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 33, 2019, [online] [retrieved on Aug. 24, 2021] Retrieved fro… [cited by applicant]
Cleves et al., “Quantitative surface field analysis: learning causal models to predict ligand binding affinity and pose”, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 32, 2018, pp. 731-757, doi: 10.1007/s10822-018-0… [cited by applicant]
Cramer et al., “Comparative Molecular Field analysis (CoMFA). 1. Effect of Shape on Binding of Steroids to Carrier Proteins”, Journal of American Chemical Society, vol. 110, No. 18, Aug. 1, 1988, pp. 5959-5967, doi: 10.… [cited by applicant]
Da et al., “Structural Protein-Ligand Interaction Fingerprints (SPLIF) for Structure-Based Virtual Screening: Method and Benchmark Study”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 54, No. 9, Aug. 13, 2014, pp.… [cited by applicant]
Das et al., “Automated de novo prediction of native-like RNA tertiary structures”, PNAS, vol. 104, No. 37, Sep. 11, 2007, pp. 14664-14669, doi: 10.1073/pnas.0703836104. [cited by applicant]
Fan et al., “Haloperidol bound D(2) dopamine receptor structure inspired the discovery of subtype selective ligands”, Nature Communications, vol. 11, No. 1, Article 1074, Feb. 26, 2020, 11 pgs., doi: 10.1038/s41467-020-… [cited by applicant]
Friesner et al., “Extra precision glide: docking and scoring incorporating a model of hydrophobic enclosure for protein-ligand complexes”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 49, No. 21, Sep. 23, 2006, pp. 6177-6196, d… [cited by applicant]
Friesner et al., “Glide: A New Approach for Rapid, Accurate Docking and Scoring. 1. Method and Assessment of Docking Accuracy”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 47, No. 7, Feb. 27, 2004, pp. 1739-1749, doi: 10.1021/… [cited by applicant]
Fu et al., “RosettaLigandEnsemble: A Small-Molecule Ensemble-Driven Docking Approach”, ACS Omega, vol. 3, No. 4, Apr. 2, 2018, pp. 3655-3664 doi: 10.1021/acsomega.7b02059. [cited by applicant]
Gainza et al., “Deciphering interaction fingerprints from protein molecular surfaces using geometric deep learning”, Nature Methods, vol. 17, No. 2, Feb. 2020, published online Dec. 9, 2019, pp. 184-192, doi: 10.1038/s4… [cited by applicant]
Gaulton et al., “The ChEMBL database in 2017”, Nucleic Acids Research, vol. 45, No. D1, Jan. 2017, pp. D945-D954, doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1074. [cited by applicant]
Hand et al., “Idiot's Bayes: Not So Stupid after All?”, International Statistical Review/ Revue Internationale de Statistique, vol. 69, No. 3, Dec. 2001, pp. 385-398, doi: 10.2307/1403452. [cited by applicant]
Hauser et al., “Pharmacogenomics of GPCR Drug Targets”, Cell, vol. 172, No. 1-2, Jan. 11, 2018, pp. 41-54.e19, Open Access published Dec. 14, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.033. [cited by applicant]
Jain, “Surflex: Fully Automatic Flexible Molecular Docking Using a Molecular Similarity-Based Search Engine”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 46, No. 4, Jan. 21, 2003, pp. 499-511, 10.1021/jm020406h. [cited by applicant]
Jones et al., “Development and Validation of a Genetic Algorithm for Flexible Docking”, Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 267, No. 3, Apr. 4, 1997, pp. 727-748, doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0897. [cited by applicant]
Kramer et al., “The Experimental Uncertainty of Heterogeneous Public Ki Data”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 55, No. 11, May 29, 2012, pp. 5165-5173, doi: 10.1021/jm300131x. [cited by applicant]
Kuntz et al., “A Geometric Approach to Macromolecule-Ligand Interactions”, Journal of molecular biology, vol. 161, No. 2, Oct. 25, 1982, pp. 269-288, doi: 10.1016/0022-2836(82)90153-X. [cited by applicant]
Leelananda et al., “Computational methods in drug discovery”, Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry, vol. 12, Dec. 12, 2016, pp. 2694-2718, doi: 10.3762/bjoc.12.267. [cited by applicant]
Lim et al., “Predicting Drug-Target Interaction Using a Novel Graph Neural Network with 3D Structure-Embedded Graph Representation”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 59, No. 9, Aug. 23, 2019, published… [cited by applicant]
Malhotra et al., “When Does Chemical Elaboration Induce a Ligand To Change Its Binding Mode?”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 60, Jan. 12, 2017, pp. 128-145, published online Dec. 16, 2016, doi: 10.1021/acs.jmedch… [cited by applicant]
Pagadala et al., “Software for molecular docking: a review”, Biophys Review, vol. 9, No. 2, Apr. 2017, pp. 91-102, published online Jan. 16, 2017, doi: 10.1007/s12551-016-0247-1. [cited by applicant]
Platzer et al., “Conformational Energy Calculations of Enzyme-Substrate Interactions. II. Computation of the Binding Energy for Substrates in the Active Site of α-Chymotrypsin”, International Journal of Peptide and Prot… [cited by applicant]
Ragoza et al., “Protein-Ligand Scoring with Convolutional Neural Networks”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 57, No. 4, Apr. 24, 2017, pp. 942-957, doi: 10.1021/acs.jcim.6b00740. [cited by applicant]
Rarey et al., “A Fast Flexible Docking Method using an Incremental Construction Algorithm”, Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 261, No. 3, Aug. 23, 1996, pp. 470-489, doi: 10.1006/jmbi.1996.0477. [cited by applicant]
Renner et al., “Maximum Common Binding Modes (MCBM): Consensus Docking Scoring Using Multiple Ligand Information and Interaction Fingerprints”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 48, No. 2, published on … [cited by applicant]
Santos et al., “A comprehensive map of molecular drug targets”, Nature Review Drug Discovery, vol. 16, No. 1, Jan. 2017, published online Dec. 2, 2016, pp. 19-34, doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.230. [cited by applicant]
Sastry et al., “Rapid Shape-Based Ligand Alignment and Virtual Screening Method Based on Atom/Feature-Pair Similarities and vol. Overlap Scoring”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 51, No. 10, Aug. 28, … [cited by applicant]
Sherman et al., “Novel Procedure for Modeling Ligand/Receptor Induced Fit Effects”, Journal of Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 49, No. 2, Dec. 23, 2005, pp. 534-553, doi: 10.1021/jm050540c. [cited by applicant]
Sippl, “Boltzmann's principle, knowledge-based mean fields and protein folding. An approach to the computational determination of protein structures”, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 7, Aug. 1993, pp. 4… [cited by applicant]
Sippl, “Calculation of Conformational Ensembles from Potentials of Mean Force. An Approach to the Knowledge-based Prediction of Local Structures in Globular Proteins”, Journal of Molecular Biology, vol. 213, No. 4, Jun.… [cited by applicant]
Sliwoski et al., “Computational Methods in Drug Discovery”, Pharmacological Reviews, vol. 66, No. 1, Jan. 2014, pp. 334-395, doi: 10.1124/pr.112.007336. [cited by applicant]
Trott et al., “AutoDock Vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading”, Journal of Computational Chemistry, vol. 31, No. 2, Jan. 30, 2010, pp. … [cited by applicant]
Venkatachalam et al., “LigandFit: a novel method for the shape-directed rapid docking of ligands to protein active sites”, Journal of Molecular Graphics and Modelling, vol. 21, No. 4, Jan. 2003, pp. 289-307, doi: 10.101… [cited by applicant]
Verma et al., “3D-QSAR in Drug Design—a Review”, Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 10, No. 1, 2010, pp. 95-115, doi: 10.2174/156802610790232260. [cited by applicant]
Vieth et al., “DOMCoSAR: A Novel Approach for Establishing the Docking Mode That is Consistent With the Structure-Activity Relationship. Application to HIV-1 Protease Inhibitors and VEGF Receptor Tyrosine Kinase Inhibit… [cited by applicant]
Wallach et al., “Predicting Multiple Ligand Binding Modes Using Self-Consistent Pharmacophore Hypotheses”, Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling, vol. 49, No. 9, Aug. 27, 2009, pp. 2116-2128, doi: 10.1021/ci90019… [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “Comprehensive evaluation of ten docking programs on a diverse set of protein-ligand complexes: the prediction accuracy of sampling power and scoring power”, Physical Chemistry Chemical Physics, vol. 18, 20… [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “Structure of the D2 dopamine receptor bound to the atypical antipsychotic drug risperidone”, Nature, vol. 555, No. 7695, Mar. 8, 2018, published online Jan. 24, 2018, pp. 269-273, doi: 10.1038/nature25758. [cited by applicant]
Wang et al., “The PDBbind Database: Methodologies and Updates”, Journal Medicinal Chemistry, vol. 48, No. 12, May 24, 2005, pp. 4111-4119, doi: 10.1021/jm048957q. [cited by applicant]
Yu et al., “Computer-Aided Drug Design Methods”, Antibiotics, Methods in Molecular Biology, vol. 1520, Chapter 5, Humana Press, Nov. 22, 2016, pp. 85-106, doi: 10.1007/978-1-4939-6634-9_5. [cited by applicant]
Alam et al., “3D-QSAR, Docking, ADME/Tox studies on Flavone analogs reveal anticancer activity through Tankyrase inhibition”, Scientific Reports, vol. 9, Article 5414, Apr. 1, 2019, 15 pgs., doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-4198… [cited by applicant]
Li et al., “An Overview of Scoring Functions Used for Protein—Ligand Interactions in Molecular Docking”, Interdisciplinary Sciences: Computational Life Sciences, vol. 11, Jun. 1, 2019, pp. 320-328, doi: 10.1007/s12539-0… [cited by applicant]
Papadatos et al., “Activity, assay and target data curation and quality in the ChEMBL database”, Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, vol. 29, Jul. 23, 2015, pp. 885-896, doi: 10.1007/s10822-015-9860-5. [cited by applicant]