NEAT-POCKET: Pocket-Conditioned Autoregressive 3D Molecular Generation with a Neighborhood-Guided Set Transformer
Authors: Roxane Axel Jacob, Daniel Rose, Thierry Langer, Johannes Kirchmair
Organizations: Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, University of Vienna, Josef-Holaubek-Platz 2, 1090 Vienna, Austria. · Christian Doppler Laboratory for Molecular Informatics in the Biosciences, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences, Josef-Holaubek-Platz 2, 1090 Vienna, Austria. · Vienna Doctoral School of Pharmaceutical, Nutritional and Sport Sciences (PhaNuSpo), Josef-Holaubek-Platz 2, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
AI-driven de novo molecular design offers a promising route to accelerate early-stage drug discovery by generating novel ligands directly within target protein binding pockets. We present NEAT-POCKET, a pocket-conditioned extension of the autoregressive NEAT model for 3D molecular generation. NEAT-POCKET generates molecules atom by atom in protein pocket environments while preserving atom permutation invariance and explicitly modeling hydrogen atoms. Benchmarks on the CrossDocked and SPINDR datasets show that NEAT-POCKET achieves competitive structure-based generation performance while sampling substantially faster than existing baselines. Beyond full-molecule generation, NEAT-POCKET naturally enables pocket-conditioned fragment completion, a task directly relevant to lead optimization and scaffold elaboration. These results position NEAT-POCKET as a fast, flexible, and practical framework for structure-based drug design.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the architecture of NEAT-POCKET.
PB valid
PC clashes
PC SE
Vina score
Vina min
Mol. weight
Rank
Sampling time
[%] ↑
[1] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[g/mol]
[1] ↓
[s] ↓
CrossDocked
94.0 ± 4.7
6.9 ± 1.1
63 ± 23
-7.1 ± 0.6
-7.3 ± 0.5
332 ± 29
-
-
Pocket2Mol
71.1 ± 3.7
6.9 ± 0.9
65 ± 36
-5.4 ± 0.5
-6.9 ± 0.5
223 ± 21
3.00
845 ± 838
TargetDiff
46.4 ± 3.3
10.8 ± 1.4
1003 ± 378
-6.5 ± 0.4
-7.5 ± 0.4
324 ± 20
3.39
722 ± 201
DiffSBDD
49.6 ± 2.6
14.3 ± 2.0
891 ± 271
-3.6 ± 0.8
-6.3 ± 0.4
296 ± 14
3.32
88 ± 30
DrugFlow
61.7 ± 3.7
9.2 ± 1.4
255 ± 113
-5.8 ± 0.5
-6.9 ± 0.4
309 ± 20
2.81
112 ± 35
Table 1: Performance of NEAT-POCKET vs. other pocket-conditioned 3D molecule generators trained on CrossDocked or SPINDR (best in bold, second-best underlined; sampling times reported for the generation of 100 molecules)
Fig. 2: Average values of general physicochemical properties of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol, TargetDiff, DiffSBDD, DrugFlow and NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked — deviation from CrossDocked.
Fig. 3: Distribution of ring sizes (top) and atom types (bottom) of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol, TargetDiff, DiffSBDD, DrugFlow and NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked — deviation from CrossDocked.
Fig. 4: Representative examples of pocket-conditioned 3D molecule generation with NEAT-POCKET. Molecules were generated in the binding pocket of DNA photolyase from the cyanobacterium Anacystis nidulans (PDB: 1QNF). (A) Experimentally resolved reference ligand (7,8-didemethyl-8-hydroxy-5-deazariboflavin). (B–D) Representative generated ligands.
CFG
PB valid
PC clashes
PC SE
Vina score
Vina min
Mol. weight
[%] ↑
[1] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[g/mol]
0.0
71.0 ± 3.2
8.3 ± 1.0
155 ± 90
-4.4 ± 0.3
-6.5 ± 0.4
273 ± 19
0.5
69.2 ± 3.6
6.6 ± 0.9
265 ± 167
-5.1 ± 0.3
-6.6 ± 0.4
289 ± 22
1.0
64.1 ± 3.9
5.8 ± 0.8
382 ± 250
-5.3 ± 0.3
-6.7 ± 0.4
300 ± 23
1.5
58.4 ± 4.3
5.1 ± 0.7
511 ± 308
-5.5 ± 0.4
-6.7 ± 0.4
308 ± 24
2.0
53.5 ± 4.5
4.7 ± 0.7
544 ± 390
-5.6 ± 0.4
-6.7 ± 0.4
316 ± 25
Table 2: Impact of cfg on the quality of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on the CrossDocked dataset (best in bold, second-best underlined)
CFG
PB valid
PC clashes
PC SE
Vina score
Vina min
Mol. weight
[%] ↑
[1] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[g/mol]
0.0
80.5 ± 1.4
4.8 ± 0.3
32 ± 15
-4.8 ± 0.2
-6.4 ± 0.2
281 ± 10
0.5
80.3 ± 1.6
3.7 ± 0.3
62 ± 34
-5.5 ± 0.2
-6.8 ± 0.2
307 ± 12
1.0
75.2 ± 2.0
3.2 ± 0.2
92 ± 55
-5.8 ± 0.2
-6.9 ± 0.2
324 ± 13
1.5
68.6 ± 2.4
2.7 ± 0.2
138 ± 80
-5.9 ± 0.2
-7.0 ± 0.2
338 ± 13
2.0
62.1 ± 2.8
2.4 ± 0.2
181 ± 103
-6.0 ± 0.2
-7.0 ± 0.2
350 ± 14
Table 3: Impact of cfg on the quality of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on the SPINDR dataset (best in bold, second-best underlined)
Prefix
PB valid
PC clashes
PC SE
Vina score
Vina min
Molecular weight
Unique
[%] ↑
[1] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[g/mol]
[%] ↑
DiffSBDD
none
49.6 ± 2.6
14.3 ± 2.0
891 ± 271
-3.6 ± 0.8
-6.3 ± 0.4
296 ± 14
97.8 ± 0.3
smallest
29.2 ± 5.0
36.5 ± 5.9
262 ± 160
14.2 ± 3.7
-3.7 ± 0.5
280 ± 16
99.5 ± 0.5
second-largest
40.8 ± 4.8
22.3 ± 4.5
275 ± 177
4.5 ± 2.6
-4.7 ± 0.4
287 ± 16
98.3 ± 1.0
largest
51.8 ± 5.0
14.1 ± 2.5
299 ± 225
-2.2 ± 1.2
-6.1 ± 0.4
306 ± 16
86.9 ± 4.8
Table 4: Performance of NEAT-POCKET vs. DiffSBDD on completing fragments of different sizes derived from the CrossDocked reference ligands (best in bold, second-best underlined)
Prefix
PB valid
PC clashes
PC SE
Vina score
Vina min
Molecular weight
Unique
[%] ↑
[1] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[kcal/mol] ↓
[g/mol]
[%] ↑
FLOWR
none
75.8 ± 1.0
4.6 ± 0.4
35 ± 9
-7.0 ± 0.2
-7.7 ± 0.2
395 ± 6
99.9 ± 0.1
smallest
57.7 ± 3.5
4.5 ± 0.4
22 ± 9
-7.4 ± 0.3
-8.0 ± 0.3
381 ± 15
95.6 ± 1.6
second-largest
41.8 ± 4.0
4.4 ± 0.4
22 ± 10
-7.2 ± 0.3
-7.8 ± 0.3
383 ± 16
95.3 ± 1.7
largest
31.1 ± 3.7
4.2 ± 0.4
19 ± 9
-7.2 ± 0.3
-7.8 ± 0.3
391 ± 16
88.6 ± 3.1
Table 5: Performance of NEAT-POCKET vs. FLOWR on completing fragments of different sizes derived from the SPINDR reference ligands (best in bold, second-best underlined)
Fig. 5: Representative examples of pocket- and prefix-conditioned 3D molecule generation with NEAT-POCKET. Molecules were generated from a fixed prefix (highlighted in red) in the binding pocket of the human PRMT5:MEP50 (PDB: 7KID). (A) Experimentally resolved reference ligand (5,5-bicyclic inhibitor 72). (B–D) Representative generated ligands.
Parameter
Value
batch size
256
bias
true
CFG dropout
0.2
clash penalty
4.0
clash penalty margin
0.0
dropout
0.1
Table S1: Hyperparameters of NEAT-POCKET pretrained on GEOM-Drugs and finetuned on CrossDocked.
Fig. S1: Two representative CrossDocked ligands are shown before and after hydrogen addition. Panels A–D show the first ligand: (A) raw input structure, (B) RDKit default hydrogen addition, (C) Open Babel hydrogen addition, and (D) RDKit constrained force-field-based hydrogen placement. Panels E–H show the same sequence for a second ligand. The raw molecules are displayed as kekulized structures, as provided in the input data, to illustrate the representation errors that can lead to incorrect perceptions of aromaticity, protonation assignments, and hydrogen placement.
Fig. S2: Average values of general physicochemical properties of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol, TargetDiff, DiffSBDD, DrugFlow and NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked.
Fig. S3: Distribution of ring sizes (top) and atom types (bottom) of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol, TargetDiff, DiffSBDD, DrugFlow and NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked.
PC HBA
PC HBD
PC hydrophobic
PC vdW
SA score
Lipinski RO5
[1] ↑
[1] ↑
[1] ↑
[1] ↑
[1] ↓
[%] ↑
CrossDocked
2.13 ± 0.41
0.96 ± 0.21
1.49 ± 0.41
8.55 ± 0.71
7.50 ± 0.21
62.0 ± 9.7
Pocket2Mol
0.94 ± 0.16
0.35 ± 0.05
1.63 ± 0.28
6.60 ± 0.54
7.12 ± 0.07
89.3 ± 4.2
TargetDiff
1.68 ± 0.27
0.72 ± 0.09
1.51 ± 0.24
9.44 ± 0.64
8.04 ± 0.10
66.3 ± 4.7
DiffSBDD
1.37 ± 0.19
0.55 ± 0.06
1.59 ± 0.23
8.53 ± 0.57
7.84 ± 0.08
77.8 ± 3.0
DrugFlow
1.61 ± 0.29
0.69 ± 0.10
1.60 ± 0.32
8.31 ± 0.61
7.54 ± 0.09
69.0 ± 6.5
Table S2: Performance of NEAT-POCKET vs. other 3D molecule generators trained on CrossDocked and SPINDR – extended results
Mean
Median
Top-1
Mean w/o top-1
Median w/o top-1
Num.outliers upper tail
Num.outliers lower tail
Mean w/o outliers
Median w/o outliers
CrossDocked
Pocket2Mol
156
65
6,538
91
65
1
0
91
65
TargetDiff
1,516
1,003
30,257
1,225
989
2
1
1,129
989
DiffSBDD
2,485
891
106,920
1,430
882
5
2
1,004
869
DrugFlow
1.5×108
255
1.5×1010
14,422
254
10
1
306
226
NEAT-POCKET
411
265
2960
385
264
0
2
445
279
Table S3: Aggregated strain energies in kcal/mol across CrossDocked and SPINDR test pockets under different aggregation and outlier-removal strategies
Fig. S4: Average strain energies of generated molecules per CrossDocked and SPINDR test pockets.
Fig. S5: Distribution of absolute and relative fragment sizes obtained from the CrossDocked reference ligands.
Fig. S6: Distribution of absolute and relative fragment sizes obtained from the SPINDR reference ligands.
Fig. S7: Examples of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol (3D).
Fig. S8: Examples of molecules generated by Pocket2Mol (2D).
Fig. S9: Examples of molecules generated by TargetDiff (3D).
Fig. S10: Examples of molecules generated by TargetDiff (2D).
Fig. S11: Examples of molecules generated by DiffSBDD (3D).
Fig. S12: Examples of molecules generated by DiffSBDD (2D).
Fig. S13: Examples of molecules generated by DrugFlow (3D).
Fig. S14: Examples of molecules generated by DrugFlow (2D).
Fig. S15: Examples of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked (3D).
Fig. S16: Examples of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on CrossDocked (2D).
Fig. S17: Examples of molecules generated by FLOWR (3D).
Fig. S18: Examples of molecules generated by FLOWR (2D).
Fig. S19: Examples of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on SPINDR (3D).
Fig. S20: Examples of molecules generated by NEAT-POCKET trained on SPINDR (2D).
Generative molecular models for drug design are a promising direction with much active research. In the next phase of computational drug design, such models will need to understand small molecule structure and protein-ligand interactions, and they will need to possess the machinery to generate molecules de novo. Incorporating each feature poses a critical challenge. Equally important, yet often treated as secondary, is the ability to grow a molecule from a partial starting point -- a scaffold or fragment supplied by a chemist -- which is the central operation of lead optimization. We present Sesame (Spatial Evoformer for a Structure-Aware Molecular Engine), a diffusion-based molecular generation model that leverages a novel spatial pairformer module to condition on partial molecular structure and the surrounding protein pocket, both expressed as continuous spatial density maps. This single conditioning mechanism supports both de novo generation and fragment-conditioned lead optimization, letting a medicinal chemist prune a hit to a scaffold and have Sesame grow it in productive ways. In addition to this module, we also introduce a diffusion framework for joint denoising of atom types, bond types, and positions, along with a trajectory finetuning scheme that trains on the model's own sampling rollouts to improve generation quality. Sesame is trained on a large corpus of ligand-only and protein-ligand datasets.
Konstantin Yatsenko, Arvind Thiagarajan
Tessel Biosciences, Inc., 750 Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02139
Structure-based drug design has been accelerated by pocket-aware 3D generative models, yet most methods primarily fit the training distribution and may fall short of satisfying multiple properties required in real-world therapeutic drug discovery. Recently, increasing attention has focused on structure-based molecule optimization (SBMO), which targets fine-grained control over multiple specified molecular properties. In this paper, we present DEPPA, a novel SBMO approach building upon Denoising Diffusion Policy Optimization for fine-tuning a pre-trained pocket-aware diffusion model via reinforcement learning. DEPPA enables optimization over multiple properties, including binding affinity, drug-likeness, synthesizability and diversity. We formulate the reverse denoising process of the pretrained pocket-aware diffusion model as a multi-step Markov Decision Process, where the desired properties that serve as reward signals are evaluated on the final generated ligand molecules. DEPPA incorporates a coarse denoising scheduler during the RL fine-tuning to achieve efficient and effective molecule optimization. Experimental results on the CrossDocked2020 benchmark demonstrate that DEPPA outperforms baselines in binding affinity (Vina Score -8.5 kcal/mol), drug-likeness and diversity while exhibiting competitive performance in synthesizability. The source code is available at https://github.com/xy9485/DePPA .
Yuan Xue, Daniel Kudenko, Megha Khosla
L3S Research Center, Hanover, Germany · Delft University of Technology, Delft, Netherlands
Drug discovery and development is time-consuming and resource-intensive, motivating computational approaches such as diffusion models for de novo drug design. Many such models follow the structure-based drug design (SBDD) paradigm, generating molecules to fit a target binding pocket. However, existing diffusion-based SBDD methods typically couple pocket and ligand representation learning, model interactions only at the atom level, and prioritize binding affinity over other developability properties. Here, we introduce conDitar-dev, a conditional diffusion-based SBDD framework for generating ligands with strong binding affinities and favorable ADMET properties. It consists of three modules: msPRL, a pretrained multi-scale pocket representation learning module; conDitar, a pocket-conditioned diffusion model guided by msPRL representations; and paOPT, a generation-time method for optimizing ligand developability. On a newly curated benchmark of human disease targets, conDitar outperforms state-of-the-art SBDD baselines, achieving an average binding score of -8.85 kcal/mol. Across five ADMET properties, conDitar-dev improves performance by up to 73% over conDitar. To further validate the abilities of conDitar-dev to generate developable molecules, we have applied it to two validated druggable targets: programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) and colony-stimulating factor 1 receptor (CSF1R) proteins. Top-ranked generatively designed molecules and their analogs have been experimentally synthesized and biologically tested. Two molecules generated directly by conDitar-dev for PD-L1 exhibited SPR-derived KD values of 3.49 and 3.75 μM, respectively. Hit expansion based on conDitar-dev-designed molecules identified selective CSF1R inhibitors with IC50 values as low as 200 nM, while also uncovering opportunities for drug repositioning.
Ruoxi Gao, Jiangweizhi Peng, Ziqi Chen +10
Computer Science and Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210. · Industrial and System Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455. · Google Cloud, Google LLC, Mountain View, CA 94043. +6