Transferring Peptide-Target Interaction Patterns to Small Molecules by Joint Guidance for Diffusion and Flow Matching
Organizations: AIGENDRUG Co., Ltd., Seoul · Interdisciplinary Program in Artificial Intelligence, Seoul National University · Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Seoul National University · Interdisciplinary Program in Bioinformatics, Seoul National University
Abstract
Generating small molecules to target protein-protein interactions (PPIs) remains one of the most challenging yet high-reward frontiers in drug discovery. Unlike traditional small-molecule drugs that bind to deep, well-defined pockets, PPI interfaces often comprise broad, shallow binding surfaces. A natural strategy is to leverage known peptide-target interactions, as peptide ligands provide rich interface-level constraints. However, a major algorithmic challenge is that rigid atom-level conditioning on peptide structures can over-constrain the generative space and exclude valid small-molecule solutions. To address this challenge, we present PIFT (Peptide InterFace Transfer), a novel framework that transfers peptide-target interaction patterns to small molecules through joint sampling-time guidance of masked discrete diffusion and continuous flow matching. PIFT first maps peptide-target and small-molecule-target interfaces into a shared, target-conditioned interaction space, capturing transferable interface information across molecular modalities. The resulting peptide-derived reference then jointly steers building-block logits and 3D coordinates toward peptide-compatible molecules while preserving a strong adapted molecular prior. Extensive experiments across diverse PPI targets show that the learned representation captures cross-modal interaction compatibility, while peptide guidance improves interface recovery and achieves strong docking performance and favorable molecular properties.
Figures & tables
| Average Vina Docking Score (kcal/mol, ) | ||||||||
| Category | Model | BRD2–H4 | BCL2–BAX | Calpain–Calpastatin | cIAP1–SMAC | DAB1–ApoER2 | Avg. | Med. |
| Autoregressive | Hot2Mol | -7.00 ( 0.04) | -7.61 ( 0.05) | -6.56 ( 0.03) | -6.59 ( 0.05) | -7.35 ( 0.02) | -7.01 | -7.06 |
| Search-based | SynGA | -6.47 ( 0.09) | -7.33 ( 0.05) | -6.50 ( 0.03) | -6.04 ( 0.09) | -6.78 ( 0.03) | -6.62 | -6.64 |
| GFlowNet-based | CGFlow | -7.20 ( 0.05) | -7.93 ( 0.03) | -6.91 ( 0.03) | -6.38 ( 0.03) | -6.99 ( 0.05) | -7.03 | -7.10 |
| Diffusion / Flow-based | TargetDiff | -5.30 ( 0.04) | – | -6.74 ( 0.03) | -3.50 ( 0.03) | -6.02 ( 0.08) | -6.27 | -6.82 |
| MolCRAFT | -5.02 ( 0.02) | -6.84 ( 0.03) | -7.50 ( 0.04) | -3.90 ( 0.04) | -5.32 ( 0.01) | -5.81 | -6.25 | |
| Category | Model | IFA | Validity | AiZynth. | Uniqueness | Diversity | PoseCheck |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Autoregressive | Hot2Mol | 1.347 | 0.975 | 0.529 | 1.000 | 0.819 | 10.485 |
| Search-based | SynGA | 1.329 | 1.000 | 0.258 | 1.000 | 0.878 | 11.071 |
| GFlowNet-based | CGFlow | 1.182 | 0.978 | 0.575 | 0.972 | 0.828 | 9.193 |
| Diffusion / Flow-based | TargetDiff | 1.227 | 0.571 | 0.106 | 1.000 | 0.891 | — |
| MolCRAFT | 1.420 | 0.864 | 0.226 | 0.976 | 0.854 | 11.340 | |
| Flowr | 1.290 | 0.909 | 0.023 | 1.000 | 0.842 | — |
Appendix figures & tables10 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
| Hyperparameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Interface encoder hidden dimension | 128 |
| Interface embedding dimension | 64 |
| Target encoder | hidden dim. 64, output dim. 32 |
| Stage I: modality-shared geometric pretraining | |
| Epochs | 30 |
| Steps per epoch | 2,000 |
| Hyperparameters | Discrete branch | Coordinate branch |
|---|---|---|
| Guidance start | 0.5 | 0.5 |
| Schedule exponent | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Gradient clipping | 5.0 | 5.0 |
| Guidance scale | 0.1 | 0.1 |
| Margin fraction | 1.2 | — |
| ST-Gumbel MC worlds | 4 | — |
| Hyperparameters | Values |
|---|---|
| Reverse sampling steps | 100 |
| Batch size | 64 |
| Samples per target | 256 |
| Docking | UniDock |
| Docking seeds | 5 |
| Encoder variant | Pair ranking | Pair margin |
|---|---|---|
| No target conditioning | 0.572 ( 0.029) | 0.067 ( 0.032) |
| Concatenation | 0.586 ( 0.030) | 0.054 ( 0.056) |
| Early FiLM | 0.579 ( 0.018) | 0.044 ( 0.024) |
| PIFT (Late FiLM) | 0.598 ( 0.042) | 0.099 ( 0.064) |
| Average Vina Docking Score (kcal/mol, ) | ||||||
| Category | Model | BRD2–H4 | BCL2–BAX | Calpain–Calpastatin | cIAP1–SMAC | DAB1–ApoER2 |
| Autoregressive | Hot2Mol | -7.00 ( 0.04) | -7.61 ( 0.05) | -6.56 ( 0.03) | -6.59 ( 0.05) | -7.35 ( 0.02) |
| Search-based | SynGA | -6.47 ( 0.09) | -7.33 ( 0.05) | -6.50 ( 0.03) | -6.04 ( 0.09) | -6.78 ( 0.03) |
| GFlowNet-based | CGFlow | -7.20 ( 0.05) | -7.93 ( 0.03) | -6.91 ( 0.03) | -6.38 ( 0.03) | -6.99 ( 0.05) |
| Diffusion / Flow-based | TargetDiff | -5.30 ( 0.04) | – | -6.74 ( 0.03) | -3.50 ( 0.03) | -6.02 ( 0.08) |
| MolCRAFT | -5.02 ( 0.02) | -6.84 ( 0.03) | -7.50 ( 0.04) | -3.90 ( 0.04) | -5.32 ( 0.01) | |
| PoseCheck Metrics ( ) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | H-Bond Acceptors | H-Bond Donors | Van der Waals | Hydrophobic | Sum |
| Hot2Mol | 0.201 ( 0.004) | 0.128 ( 0.008) | 7.187 ( 0.044) | 2.968 ( 0.046) | 10.485 ( 0.066) |
| SynGA | 0.241 ( 0.024) | 0.071 ( 0.006) | 7.797 ( 0.051) | 2.961 ( 0.045) | 11.071 ( 0.088) |
| CGFlow | 0.130 ( 0.006) | 0.054 ( 0.009) | 6.583 ( 0.032) | 2.427 ( 0.013) | 9.193 ( 0.048) |
| MolCRAFT | 0.232 ( 0.022) | 0.141 ( 0.024) | 7.736 ( 0.093) | 3.231 ( 0.044) | 11.340 ( 0.124) |
| SynCoGen | 0.262 ( 0.012) | 0.139 ( 0.008) | 7.364 ( 0.041) | 2.883 ( 0.037) | 10.648 ( 0.071) |
3D Molecular Generation
3D molecular generation creates molecules by modeling their chemical structures and three-dimensional geometries.
See all 59 papers