Towards Generalizing Pretrained All-Atom Representations to Unified Binder Design
Authors: Maojiang Su, Jiale Chen, Qijie Zhu, Shang Wu, Jiayi Wang, Jihai Zhao, Guo Ye, Yibo Wen, Han Liu
Organizations: Center for Foundation Models and Generative AI, Northwestern University · Department of Statistics and Data Science, Northwestern University
PairFormer-based all-atom models demonstrate strong capabilities in biomolecular binder design. However, existing methods often use all-atom representations for modality-specific binder design, such as protein and peptide design. In contrast, recent geometric latent diffusion models pursue unified binder design by representing molecular blocks from different modalities in a shared latent space. These complementary strengths motivate us to investigate how to generalize the use of pretrained all-atom representations to unified binder design. We introduce PairFuse, a parameter-efficient method that enables this generalization through representation fusion. Specifically, we use lightweight layerwise adapters to integrate pretrained all-atom representations into an independently pretrained geometric latent diffusion model. Our adapters integrate pretrained all-atom representations through two mechanisms: enriching the diffusion model's molecular block features and incorporating pairwise structural information into the geometric diffusion model's denoiser. Theoretically, we prove that the augmented denoiser preserves geometry and pairwise attention fusion provides additional attention expressivity beyond feature-only fusion. Experimentally, across antibody, peptide, and small molecule binder-design benchmarks, PairFuse achieves stronger performance than the pretrained diffusion model and existing representation-fusion baselines.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of PairFuse. A frozen BoltzGen PairFormer extracts pretrained single and pair representations, while AnewOmni provides the geometric latent diffusion model. At each denoising step, trainable layerwise adapters integrate these representations into the invariant scalar features and native geometric attention logits of EPT. The original sampler and all-atom decoder generate the final binder.
Structure and Sequence
Interface Quality
Method
Complex RMSD ↓
RMSD ≤2 Å (%) ↑
AAR ↑
DockQ ↑
Contact ↑
AnewOmni ( Kong et al., 2026 )
2.5563
34.00
15.6755
0.6853
50.9592
LLM4GEN ( Liu et al., 2025 )
2.5844 ± 0.09
33.75 ± 1.23
15.7987 ± 0.24
0.6837 ± 0.00
50.9243 ± 0.39
EnzyAdapter ( Song et al., 2025 )
2.5055 ± 0.07
36.80 ± 1.77
15.6484 ± 0.07
0.6888 ± 0.01
51.0443 ± 0.46
IP-Adapter ( Ye et al., 2023 )
2.5416 ± 0.01
35.59 ± 0.66
15.4042 ± 0.17
0.6854 ± 0.00
50.7063 ± 0.23
PairFuse (Ours)
2.3748 ± 0.00
41.61 ± 0.53
15.6882 ± 0.08
0.7019 ± 0.00
52.4309 ± 0.18
Table 1: Antibody design results on RAbD (mean ± std over 3 random seeds). The best and second-best mean metric values are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Structure and Sequence
Interface Quality
Method
Complex RMSD ↓
AAR ↑
DockQ ↑
Contact ↑
lDDT ↑
AnewOmni ( Kong et al., 2026 )
8.5619
6.4306
0.4280
33.1855
0.4197
LLM4GEN ( Liu et al., 2025 )
8.5006 ± 0.05
6.4805 ± 0.04
0.4302 ± 0.00
33.2962 ± 0.08
0.4213 ± 0.00
EnzyAdapter ( Song et al., 2025 )
8.5859 ± 0.04
6.4383 ± 0.06
0.4272 ± 0.00
32.9352 ± 0.03
0.4193 ± 0.00
IP-Adapter ( Ye et al., 2023 )
8.5664 ± 0.05
6.5084 ± 0.00
0.4248 ± 0.00
32.7373 ± 0.23
0.4169 ± 0.00
PairFuse (Ours)
8.2821 ± 0.05
6.3436 ± 0.02
0.4383 ± 0.00
34.0958 ± 0.15
0.4291 ± 0.00
Table 2: Peptide design on LNR (mean ± std over 3 random seeds). The best and second-best mean metric values are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Docking
Chemical Quality
Method
Vina score ↓
Vina min ↓
High Affinity (%) ↑
QED ↑
Atom-type MAE ↓
AnewOmni ( Kong et al., 2026 )
-5.1279
-5.9715
44.8174
0.5745
0.4188
LLM4GEN ( Liu et al., 2025 )
-5.0685 ± 0.04
-5.9298 ± 0.04
43.7900 ± 1.11
0.5765 ± 0.00
0.4153 ± 0.04
EnzyAdapter ( Song et al., 2025 )
-5.1230 ± 0.05
-5.9478 ± 0.04
45.8629 ± 0.92
0.5753 ± 0.00
0.4404 ± 0.02
IP-Adapter ( Ye et al., 2023 )
-5.1040 ± 0.03
-5.9130 ± 0.03
44.4766 ± 1.12
0.5675 ± 0.00
0.4551 ± 0.05
PairFuse (Ours)
-5.1517 ± 0.07
-5.9841 ± 0.03
46.8298 ± 1.19
0.5721 ± 0.00
0.3775 ± 0.03
Table 3: Small-molecule design on CrossDocked2020 (mean ± std over 3 random seeds). The best and second-best mean metric values are shown in bold and underline , respectively.
Peptide design (LNR)
Antibody design (RAbD)
Method
Complex RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
Contact ↑
lDDT ↑
Complex RMSD ↓
DockQ ↑
Contact ↑
lDDT ↑
Scalar Fusion
8.4545
0.4302
33.2426
0.4208
2.5114
0.6895
51.5896
0.6887
Scalar Fusion + Bias
8.3991
0.4329
33.5094
0.4233
2.5625
0.6849
50.8340
0.6848
PairFuse (Ours)
8.2543
0.4397
34.2175
0.4309
2.3704
0.7024
52.4474
0.7017
Table 4: Pairwise attention fusion ablation on peptide and antibody design (training seed 42).
Appendix figures & tables8 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Method
Trainable parameters
LLM4GEN
4,028,016
EnzyAdapter
4,027,715
IP-Adapter
4,031,232
PairFuse (Ours)
4,027,712
Appendix
Table 5: Trainable parameter counts for the compared methods.
Structure and Sequence
Interface Quality
Method
Complex RMSD (Å) ↓
AAR (%) ↑
DockQ ↑
Contact (%) ↑
lDDT ↑
Matched adapter
2.5864
15.2559
0.6861
51.0801
0.6855
Single only
2.5415
15.6205
0.6858
50.9525
0.6870
Pair only
2.4263
15.2193
0.6980
52.2595
0.6982
Full PairFuse
2.3769
15.7829
0.7025
52.5997
0.7035
Appendix
Table 6: Ablation of transferred representations: Antibody (RAbD; HCDR3).
Structure and Sequence
Interface Quality
Method
Complex RMSD (Å) ↓
AAR (%) ↑
DockQ ↑
Contact (%) ↑
lDDT ↑
Matched adapter
8.5092
6.4294
0.4297
33.2400
0.4206
Single only
8.3431
6.3114
0.4356
33.7244
0.4256
Pair only
8.4471
6.3370
0.4324
33.4552
0.4241
Full PairFuse
8.2497
6.3655
0.4393
34.1400
0.4293
Appendix
Table 7: Ablation of transferred representations: Peptide (LNR).
Vina (kcal/mol)
Chemical Quality
Method
Score ↓
Min ↓
Dock ↓
QED ↑
Matched adapter
-5.1011
-6.0286
-7.0355
0.5766
Single only
-5.0512
-5.9377
-7.0351
0.5752
Pair only
-5.1495
-5.9830
-7.1045
0.5801
Full PairFuse
-5.2283
-6.0295
-7.1400
0.5755
Appendix
Table 8: Ablation of transferred representations: Small molecule (CrossDocked2020).
Antibody
Peptide
Small molecule
Method
Time (s) ↓
Memory (GB) ↓
Time (s) ↓
Memory (GB) ↓
Time (s) ↓
Memory (GB) ↓
AnewOmni
9.44±0.14
12.90
4.84±0.03
6.86
3.65±0.11
4.29
PairFuse (Ours)
10.63±0.09
13.09
6.14±0.14
6.97
5.07±0.15
4.47
Appendix
Table 9: Inference cost on one NVIDIA RTX A6000 (48 GB). Time is mean ± sample standard deviation per batch of ten candidates over five measurements after warm-up; memory is peak PyTorch allocated GPU memory. Bold and underline indicate the best and second-best displayed means.
Metric
AnewOmni
LLM4GEN
EnzyAdapter
IP-Adapter
PairFuse (Ours)
Complex RMSD [Å] ↓
2.5563
2.5844
2.5055
2.5416
2.3748
AAR [%] ↑
15.6755
15.7987
15.6484
15.4042
15.6882
Intra-region clash [%] ↓
0.7501
0.7917
0.6406
0.6542
0.6454
Interface clash [%] ↓
0.2865
0.3648
0.3569
0.3502
0.3107
DockQ [0–1] ↑
0.6853
0.6837
0.6888
0.6854
0.7019
iRMSD [Å] ↓
1.1905
1.2002
1.1723
1.1865
1.1180
Appendix
Table 10: Antibody design on RAbD: complete metrics.
Metric
AnewOmni
LLM4GEN
EnzyAdapter
IP-Adapter
PairFuse (Ours)
Complex RMSD [Å] ↓
8.5619
8.5006
8.5859
8.5664
8.2821
Peptide RMSD [Å] ↓
2.9091
2.8684
2.8447
2.9068
2.8432
AAR [%] ↑
6.4306
6.4805
6.4383
6.5084
6.3436
Intra-region clash [%] ↓
1.0151
0.8918
0.8438
0.9654
0.8452
Interface clash [%] ↓
0.8863
0.7135
0.8847
0.9950
0.8026
DockQ [0–1] ↑
0.4280
0.4302
0.4272
0.4248
0.4383
Appendix
Table 11: Peptide design on LNR: complete metrics.
Metric
AnewOmni
LLM4GEN
EnzyAdapter
IP-Adapter
PairFuse (Ours)
Vina score [kcal/mol] ↓
-5.1279
-5.0685
-5.1230
-5.1040
-5.1517
Vina minimize [kcal/mol] ↓
-5.9715
-5.9298
-5.9478
-5.9130
-5.9841
Vina dock [kcal/mol] ↓
-7.0580
-7.0891
-7.0700
-7.0646
-7.0868
QED [0–1] ↑
0.5745
0.5765
0.5753
0.5675
0.5721
SA normalized [0–1] ↑
0.7684
0.7699
0.7771
0.7699
0.7734
Lipinski [/5] ↑
4.8066
4.7967
4.7935
4.8077
4.7759
Appendix
Table 12: Small-molecule design on CrossDocked2020: complete metrics.