Organizations: School of Computer Science and Engineering, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Engineering, Guangdong Province Key Laboratory of Computational Science, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China · Gaoling School of Artificial Intelligence, Renmin University of China, Beijing, China · School of Life Science, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
Dual-target structure-based drug design aims to generate a single ligand together with two pocket-specific binding poses, each compatible with a corresponding target pocket, enabling polypharmacological therapies with improved efficacy and reduced resistance. Existing approaches typically rely on staged pipelines, which either decouple the two poses via conditional-independence assumptions or enforce overly rigid correlations, and therefore fail to jointly generate two target-specific binding modes. To address this, we propose FuseDiff, an end-to-end diffusion model that jointly generates a ligand molecular graph and two pocket-specific binding poses conditioned on both pockets. FuseDiff features a message-passing backbone with Dual-target Local Context Fusion (DLCF), which fuses each ligand atom's local context from both pockets to enable expressive joint modeling while preserving the desired symmetries. Together with explicit bond generation, FuseDiff enforces topological consistency across the two poses under a shared graph while allowing target-specific geometric adaptation in each pocket. To support principled training and evaluation, we derive a dual-target training set and use an independent held-out test set for evaluation. Experiments on the benchmark and a real-world dual-target system show that FuseDiff achieves state-of-the-art docking performance and enables the first systematic assessment of dual-target pose quality prior to docking-based pose search.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Overview of FuseDiff . FuseDiff defines a conditional diffusion model over M=(G,X1,X2) given a pocket pair P=(P1,P2) , where the two target-specific complexes share the same molecular graph G while maintaining separate poses in P1 and P2 . A fixed forward (diffusion) process q (red arrows) corrupts (G(0),X1(0),X2(0)) into (G(T),X1(T),X2(T)) for training. For generation, the learned reverse (denoising) process pθ (green arrows) starts from M(T)∼pbase(M(T)∣P) and iteratively samples M(t−1) using a denoiser fθ . At step t , fθ takes (G(t),X1(t),X2(t)) , t , and P as input and predicts (X1(0),X2(0),V(0),B(0)) to parameterize the reverse transition.
Figure 2. Dual-target Local Context Fusion (DLCF) within one denoising layer. (a) Two pocket–ligand point-cloud graphs for P1 and P2 , each containing a fully-connected ligand subgraph. (b) The augmented graph induced from the two point-cloud graphs, on which dual-target message passing updates node/edge embeddings. (c) Coordinate update block that separately updates ligand node coordinates in the two point-cloud graphs (with pocket atoms fixed). dlcf
Methods
Metrics
QED( ↑ )
SA( ↑ )
Div.( ↑ )
logP
LPSK( ↑ )
Ref.
0.51
0.77
0.74
2.89
4.50
TargetDiff
0.54
0.55
0.67
2.32
4.69
CompDiff
0.59
0.57
0.69
3.48
4.74
DualDiff
0.59
0.58
0.69
3.54
4.88
LinkerNet
0.61
0.61
0.29
3.21
4.71
Table 1. Molecular property statistics of generated ligands and reference ligands (Avg.). ( ↑ ) indicates higher is better. Top 2 results (excluding Ref.) are highlighted with bold text and underlined text , respectively.
Methods
Metrics
P1-Vina Score ( ↓ )
P2-Vina Score ( ↓ )
P1-Vina Min ( ↓ )
P2-Vina Min ( ↓ )
Avg.
T-Avg.
Med.
Avg.
T-Avg.
Med.
Avg.
Med.
Avg.
Med.
Ref.
-7.92
-7.97
-7.83
-7.86
-7.92
-7.92
-8.02
-7.89
-7.93
-7.96
TargetDiff
-6.36
-7.03
-7.26
-
-
-
-7.78
-7.95
-
-
CompDiff
OOR
-1.68
-3.46
-
-
-
OOR
-6.26
-
-
DualDiff
OOR
-2.47
-3.63
-
-
-
OOR
-6.27
-
-
Table 2. Dual-pose quality before docking-based pose search. “–” denotes not applicable (N/A) when a method does not produce target-specific binding poses for the corresponding pocket, and “OOR” denotes out-of-range values caused by extreme/invalid poses that fall outside the reported scale.
Methods
Metrics
P1-Vina Dock ( ↓ )
P2-Vina Dock ( ↓ )
Max Vina Dock ( ↓ )
Dual High Aff. ( ↑ )
Avg.
Med.
LBE
Avg.
Med.
LBE
Avg.
Med.
Avg.
Med.
Ref.
-8.23
-7.98
-0.38
-8.14
-8.23
-0.37
-6.15
-6.73
-
-
TargetDiff
-8.95
-8.86
-0.35
-7.14
-7.99
-0.28
-6.88
-7.36
31.1%
23.4%
CompDiff
-8.75
-8.79
-0.36
-8.73
-8.65
-0.36
-7.92
-7.98
39.8%
33.0%
DualDiff
-8.80
-8.82
-0.37
-8.72
-8.78
-0.37
-7.99
-8.09
40.5%
33.4%
Table 3. Docking-based interaction evaluation and dual-target compatibility. Top 2 results (excluding Ref.) are highlighted with bold text and underlined text , respectively.
Figure 3. QED–SA density of filtered molecules ( LPSK=5 , logP∈[−0.4,5.6] ). KDE heatmaps show QED (x-axis) versus SA (y-axis) for FuseDiff (left) and DualDiff (right). The upper-right region corresponds to DL ( QED>0.6 , SA>0.7 ), where FuseDiff shows higher density, consistent with its larger DL yield (78 vs. 15).
Figure 4. Vina Score and Vina Dock distributions on GSK3 β and JNK3. Left: FuseDiff Vina Score on generated poses. Right: Vina Dock after Vina conformational search for FuseDiff and DualDiff .
Figure 5. Qualitative visualization in two pockets. Top: GSK3 β ; bottom: JNK3. Left: a reference dual-target ligand with poses obtained by Vina pose search. Middle/Right: two FuseDiff samples.
Appendix figures & tables2 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Methods
Metrics
QED( ↑ )
SA( ↑ )
Div.( ↑ )
logP
LPSK( ↑ )
Ref.
0.51
0.77
0.74
2.89
4.50
TargetDiff -CD
0.53
0.54
0.70
2.48
4.63
TargetDiff -BN2
0.54
0.55
0.67
2.32
4.69
CompDiff -CD
0.57
0.58
0.72
3.67
4.54
CompDiff -BN2
0.59
0.57
0.69
3.48
4.74
Appendix
Table 4. Checkpoint comparison on DDF (molecular properties). We report molecule-level metrics for TargetDiff , CompDiff , and DualDiff when using the official CrossDocked2020 pretrained checkpoint ( -CD ) versus our BindingNet v2 pretrained checkpoint ( -BN2 ).
Methods
Metrics
P1-Vina Dock ( ↓ )
P2-Vina Dock ( ↓ )
Max Vina Dock ( ↓ )
Dual High Aff. ( ↑ )
Avg.
Med.
LBE
Avg.
Med.
LBE
Avg.
Med.
Avg.
Med.
Ref.
-8.23
-7.98
-0.38
-8.14
-8.23
-0.37
-6.15
-6.73
-
-
TargetDiff -CD
-8.89
-8.91
-0.37
-7.23
-7.68
-0.28
-6.84
-6.91
30.8%
23.3%
TargetDiff -BN2
-8.95
-8.86
-0.35
-7.14
-7.99
-0.28
-6.88
-7.36
31.1%
23.4%
CompDiff -CD
-8.35
-8.46
-0.36
-8.35
-8.37
-0.36
-7.53
-7.84
37.9%
31.4%
Appendix
Table 5. Checkpoint comparison on DDF (docking-based affinity). Docking metrics on the two pockets (P1/P2) and their aggregate (Max Vina Dock), together with Dual High Affinity, for baselines using -CD versus -BN2 pretrained TargetDiff checkpoints.
Dual-target drug design aims to generate 3D molecules that can simultaneously interact with two target proteins, offering a promising route for discovering polypharmacological compounds against complex diseases. While recent generative models have shown encouraging performance in single-target drug design, existing dual-target approaches either focus on sequence generation or introduce an additional predictive drift term into the diffusion-based generative trajectory, which limits their ability to fully integrate feature information from both targets. We propose FusedBFN, a fused Bayesian flow network (BFN) for dual-target molecular design. FusedBFN formulates dual-target generation as distribution fusion in a unified continuous parameter space and employs a product-of-experts formulation to incorporate dual-target information throughout the generative process. To address the scarcity of dual-target structural data, we leverage a pretrained target-aware BFN model as the shared backbone. We further introduce a chemically aware prior-based alignment method and a prior-free pocket alignment strategy to construct aligned dual-target contexts. Extensive experiments demonstrate that FusedBFN generates molecules with strong binding affinity toward dual targets while maintaining favorable molecular properties.
Jingyuan Zhou, Shikui Tu, Lei Xu
School of Computer Science, Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Guangdong Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Digital Economy (SZ)
Designing a single molecule that modulates two targets is a promising strategy for polypharmacology, but it remains substantially harder than standard single-target generation because one candidate must satisfy two binding requirements while preserving drug-likeness and synthesizability. Existing dual-target generative methods typically introduce dual-target capability by either retraining the generator or intervening in the diffusion process during sampling. The former can be costly and difficult to stabilize when dual-target supervision is sparse, while the latter may be sensitive to denoising-time target balancing and competing update directions. These limitations motivate a generator-preserving alternative that keeps the pretrained prior intact: can dual-target candidates instead be recovered from the input space of a frozen single-target diffusion model, without modifying its parameters or denoising dynamics? We formulate this task as a constrained multi-objective optimization problem and propose REUSE, a hierarchical evolutionary input-space search framework that combines pair-conditioned exploration with structured multi-stage selection to enforce dual-target affinity, chemical quality, and diversity. Experiments show that, compared with methods that modify the diffusion process, REUSE consistently improves dual-target affinity and balance, achieving a 20.9-percentage-point gain in Dual High Affinity over the strongest prior baseline while maintaining competitive molecular quality.
Qingyuan Zeng, Pengxiang Cai, Zixin Guan +5
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (Guangzhou) · Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine
Predicting drug-target affinity is fundamental to virtual screening and lead optimization. However, existing deep models often suffer from representation collapse in stringent cold-start regimes, where the scarcity of labels and domain shifts prevent the learning of transferable pharmacophores and binding motifs. In this paper, we propose Co-Diffusion, a novel affinity-aware framework that redefines DTA prediction as a constrained latent denoising process to enhance generalization. Co-Diffusion employs a two-stage paradigm: Stage I establishes an affinity-steered latent manifold by aligning drug and target embeddings under an explicit supervised objective, ensuring that the latent space reflects the intrinsic binding landscape. Stage II introduces modality-specific latent diffusion as a stochastic perturb-and-denoise regularizer, forcing the model to recover consistent affinity semantics from noisy structural representations. This approach effectively mitigates the reconstruction-regression conflict common in generative DTA models. Theoretically, we show that Co-Diffusion maximizes a variational lower bound on the joint likelihood of drug structures, protein sequences, and binding strength. Extensive experiments across multiple benchmarks demonstrate that Co-Diffusion significantly outperforms state-of-the-art baselines, particularly yielding superior zero-shot generalization on unseen molecular scaffolds and novel protein families-paving a robust path for in silico drug prioritization in unexplored chemical spaces.
Yining Qian, Pengjie Wang, Yixiao Li +4
School of Computer Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China · College of Information Science and Engineering, Northeastern University, Shenyang 110819, China · Westlake University, Hangzhou 310000, China +2