NextTopDocker:
A Large-Scale Docking-Power Benchmark
Reveals Limitations of Current End-to-End Machine-Learning Docking
and the Strength of Hybrid Rescoring
Aug 2026· Journal of Medicinal Chemistry· 0 citations· 52 references
TL;DR
“NextTopDocker” is presented, a large, up-to-date, open-access data set for docking-power assessment comprising 14,038 training and 5201 test entries across 3173 unique protein targets, constructed from the Protein Data Bank.
Abstract
Predicting three-dimensional binding orientations of drug-like molecules remains challenging in structure-based drug design. Despite methodological advances, docking performance is often assessed on small and outdated benchmarks. We present “NextTopDocker,” a large, up-to-date, open-access data set for docking-power assessment comprising 14,038 training and 5201 test entries across 3173 unique protein targets, constructed from the Protein Data Bank. Developed with open-source tools, it includes crystallographic structures, Smina-generated docking poses, and ligand-similarity-aware training subsets. We benchmarked four state-of-the-art machine-learning (ML) docking frameworks (DeepDock, Interformer, SurfDock, and Uni-Mol Docking v.2) against classical (Smina) and hybrid baselines (GNINA 1.3 and logistic regression using Smina and GNINA 1.3 scores). Interformer alone matched the docking power of logistic regression on Smina poses, while the others showed dependence on downstream physics-based correction. Most raw ML-generated poses displayed steric clashes and/or implausible geometries, highlighting the need for physics-informed constraints in autonomous docking. “NextTopDocker” is available at https://github.com/caominhtr/NextTopDocker and https://zenodo.org/records/17492994.
A category-stratified, statistically powered benchmark comparing pose prediction from receptor conformational ensembles against AlphaFold2, used as a matched static-structure baseline, across 29 protein–ligand systems spanning cryptic-pocket, induced-fit, water-mediated, and autoimmune-indication target classes is presented.
Ryan Varghese, Pooja Tiwary, Krishil Oswal· bioRxiv· 0 citations
Results indicate that 2D-based docking-score surrogate modeling can provide a reproducible and retrainable strategy for large-scale structure-based virtual screening by concentrating docking resources on a smaller, enriched subset of compounds.
Jongkeun Choi· International Journal of Mol...· 0 citations
Molecular docking is one of the most established methods in computational drug discovery, due to its balance of speed and accuracy. However, the accuracy of docking results depends on a number of different parameters, and systematic reference data for comparisons to more advanced methods for binding affinity prediction are still scarce. This study assesses the impact of key parameters on the accuracy of binding free energy estimates from docking, using nine benchmark systems with 278 high-affinity ligands. Using the Molecular Operating Environment (MOE), we evaluated combinations of three receptor structures (two crystal structures, one AlphaFold2 model), two force fields, two scoring functions, two receptor flexibility settings, and two statistical evaluation schemes. The performance of the docking approaches is measured based on the squared Pearson’s correlation coefficient (R²), the root mean square error (RMSE) with respect to the experimental binding affinities, as well as the mean signed error (MSE) and Kendall’s tau for individual targets and the full dataset. The results show that the scoring function and the protein structure are the most important factors for binding affinity accuracy in rigid docking with the MOE software. Amber10:EHT and MMFF94x force fields had the same average Rmean2 value, but Amber10:EHT had a lower average RMSEmean. AlphaFold2 protein models yielded lower binding affinity accuracy and higher errors compared to experimental crystal structures, although induced fit docking improved results. Using the original benchmark, we also compared several docking programs. DOCK6 and MOE performed best, with mean R² values of about 0.49 and 0.40, respectively. The remaining docking programs did not outperform a molecular weight regression baseline. For a subset of four targets (CDK2, JNK1, P38, TYK2) evaluated in previous work, the performance of the optimized DOCK6 and MOE protocols produced correlation coefficients similar to those reported for certain MM/PBSA, FMO, and Boltz2 implementations evaluated on the same target subset. This raises questions about potential dataset biases, the structural preparation, or the implementation of those methods. Docking therefore should be considered as an important and computationally inexpensive reference baseline for binding affinity prediction.
Konstantinos Tornesakis, J. Essex, Paul A. Cox et al.· Journal of Computer-Aided Mo...· 0 citations
Structural investigation of re-docked actives showed that re-ranked poses were more native-like, with improved binding-site occupancy, reduced centroid displacement, and greater recovery of co-crystal interactions.
Lai Hoang Son Le, Thanh-An Pham, Ngoc Nguyen Tran et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations
Novo-1, a coarse-grained cofolding framework for binding- affinity prediction, offers more than one order of magnitude speed-up over the leading open-source baseline, Boltz-2, and demonstrates meaningful selectivity, separating the binding affinities of identical compounds between on-targets and related off-targets.
Nikhil Shenoy, David Errington, Emmanuel Bengio et al.· bioRxiv· 0 citations