CBGBench: Fill in the Blank of Protein-Molecule Complex Binding Graph
Haitao Lin, Guojiang Zhao, Odin Zhang, Yufei Huang, Lirong Wu, Zicheng, Liu, Siyuan Li, Cheng Tan, Zhifeng Gao, Stan Z. Li

TL;DR
CBGBench is a standardized, modular benchmark framework for structure-based drug design that unifies diverse tasks as a graph fill-in problem, enabling fair comparison and comprehensive evaluation of generative models.
Contribution
The paper introduces CBGBench, a unified benchmark for SBDD that standardizes tasks, facilitates fair comparison, and broadens evaluation scope with multiple sub-tasks.
Findings
Provides a comprehensive, fair evaluation of generative models in SBDD
Includes pre-trained models and detailed empirical analysis
Enables standardized comparison across diverse drug design tasks
Abstract
Structure-based drug design (SBDD) aims to generate potential drugs that can bind to a target protein and is greatly expedited by the aid of AI techniques in generative models. However, a lack of systematic understanding persists due to the diverse settings, complex implementation, difficult reproducibility, and task singularity. Firstly, the absence of standardization can lead to unfair comparisons and inconclusive insights. To address this dilemma, we propose CBGBench, a comprehensive benchmark for SBDD, that unifies the task as a generative heterogeneous graph completion, analogous to fill-in-the-blank of the 3D complex binding graph. By categorizing existing methods based on their attributes, CBGBench facilitates a modular and extensible framework that implements various cutting-edge methods. Secondly, a single task on \textit{de novo} molecule generation can hardly reflect their…
Peer Reviews
Decision·ICLR 2025 Spotlight
1. The unified code base is a nice contribution to the community and beneficial for future research. 2. The evaluation protocol is comprehensive with a reasonable benchmark setting. 3. The benchmarked methods are representative and state-of-the-art.
1. It would be better if the author could discuss the recent trend of training a unified model for small molecules and macromolecules such as proteins and nucleic acids, and its implications on the field of SBDD.
The paper fills a notable gap in the SBDD domain by providing a well-structured and unified benchmarking framework. The comprehensive evaluation protocol addresses the diverse nature of generative tasks. The study uses extensive metrics to evaluate models, including metrics like Ligand Binding Efficiency (LBE) to address the size bias in generated molecules. Application to real pharmaceutical targets like ADRB1 and DRD3 demonstrates the practical potential of the benchmark and supports the gen
Further testing on more diverse real world systems should be done. Exploring how this models behave in systems like KRAS12 for instance where the main goal is growing into subpockets, would enrich this study.
S1. This paper has evaluated almost all the prevailing SBDD methods in generative models in AI conference. S2. It adapt some of the models to a range of tasks essential in drug design, considered sub-tasks within the graph fill-in-the-blank tasks. S3. It establish a training, sampling and evaluation codebase, which is comprehensive and effective affter my testing. S4. The benchmark evaluates all the models for the two real-world target proteins, as a solid case study.
W1. Doubts of classification: In Line 165, it states that MolCraft using BFN as the variant of the diffusion models. However, I have two questions, Firstly, it appears that “one-shot model” in the paper refers to diffusion-based models. Given this, is it reasonable to classify BFN as a diffusion model? MolCraft generates in parameter space, while diffusion generates in data space, which I believe is a distinction. Is the authors’ classification reasonable in this regard? W2. Doubts of evaluatio
Code & Models
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks
