Deep learning in GPCR drug discovery: benchmarking the path to accurate peptide binding
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 10, 2025

Biosensor-based High Throughput Biopanning and Bioinformatics Analysis Strategy for the Global Validation of Drug-protein Interactions
Published on: December 1, 2020
Luuk R Hoegen Dijkhof1,2, Teemu K E Rönkkö1,2, Hans C von Vegesack1,2
1Department of Drug Design and Pharmacology, University of Copenhagen, Jagtvej 160, 2100 Ø, Copenhagen, Denmark.
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.
More Related Videos
06:50Author Spotlight: A Computational Approach to Decipher Amino Acid Preferences in Multispecific Protein-Protein Interactions
Published on: January 26, 2024
10:21Author Spotlight: Streamlining Protein Target Prediction and Validation via Molecular Docking and CETSA
Published on: February 23, 2024
Related Concept Videos
Protein-protein Interfaces
G Protein-coupled Receptors
GPCRs are also called heptahelical, 7TM, or serpentine receptors, and consist of seven (H1-H7) transmembrane alpha-helices that span the bilayer to form a cylindrical core. The transmembrane helices are connected by three extracellular loops and three...
Conserved Binding Sites
Binding sites are often located in large pockets, and if their location on a protein’s surface is unknown, it can be predicted using various approaches. The energetic method computationally...
Ligand Binding Sites
Protein-ligand interactions are quite specific; even though numerous potential ligands surround a cellular protein at any given time, only a particular ligand can bind to that protein. Moreover, a ligand binds only to a dedicated area on the surface of the protein, known as the...
Protein-Drug Binding: Determination Methods
Indirect methods involve isolating the bound drug from its free form in biological samples such as blood, serum, or plasma. These techniques aim to measure the percentage of drugs bound to proteins. Equilibrium dialysis is a commonly used method where the free drug concentration at equilibrium is measured by separating the bound...