Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 44 references

QDockBank: A Dataset for Ligand Docking on Protein Fragments Predicted on Utility-Level Quantum Computers

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper introduces QDockBank, a 55-fragment dataset of ligand-binding protein structures generated entirely on utility-level quantum hardware, and claims these structures beat the leading deep-learning predictors on both RMSD and…

desk verdict Real quantum hardware dataset, but the headline docking comparison is biologically invalid and the AlphaFold baseline is underspecified, so the central claim does not hold as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.00837 v1 pith:P4A7S4RR submitted 2025-06-27 cs.ET

Yuqi Zhang , Yuxin Yang , Cheng-Chang Lu , Weiwen Jiang , Feixiong Cheng , Bo Fang , Qiang Guan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.ET
keywords quantumproteinstructurepredictionliganddockingvariationaleigensolverbenchmarkdatasetcoarse-grainedlatticemodelbindingaffinityRMSDsuperconductingprocessor
topics Protein Folding
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

QDockBank is the first large-scale dataset of protein fragment structures generated entirely on utility-level quantum computers. The paper's central claim is that these 55 fragments, drawn from ligand-binding pockets, are more accurate than the leading deep-learning predictors: in its evaluations, the quantum structures beat the older deep-learning baseline in binding affinity in 53 of 55 cases and beat the newer baseline in 50 of 55, with similar win rates on RMSD. If true, this means a first-principles, physics-based quantum pipeline can outperform data-driven models exactly where those models are weakest: short, variable peptides in functional pockets. The dataset also records docking scores, RMSD values, qubit counts, circuit depths, and execution times, making it a reproducible benchmark for quantum biomolecular modeling. The paper reports over 60 hours of processor runtime and a total computational cost above one million dollars, framing the scale at which such quantum structure prediction currently operates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is a tetrahedral-lattice coarse-grained encoding combined with a four-term Hamiltonian $H_t = \lambda_c H_c + \lambda_g H_g + \lambda_d H_d + \lambda_i H_i$, where the terms enforce chirality, backbone geometry, residue-collision avoidance, and pairwise amino acid interaction energies. Each residue becomes a node with four allowed continuation directions and a fixed $\sim$109.4° bond angle, so every conformation maps to a quantum state and the Hamiltonian's expectation value is the conformational energy. A variational quantum eigensolver—a hybrid loop in which a parameterized circuit is updated classically to lower $\langle \psi | U^\dagger(\theta) H U(\theta) |\psi \rangle$—finds the low-energy state; the circuit is then measured 100,000 times and the sampled bitstrings are reconstructed into atomic coordinates. Extra ancilla qubits are allocated during compilation to shorten the circuit by reducing routing overhead, which is the strategy that makes deep circuits runnable on current hardware.

What would settle it

Run the same docking comparison on full-length protein structures (or on fragments embedded in the surrounding pocket residues) rather than on the isolated fragments: if the deep-learning models' full-length structures match or beat the quantum fragments' affinity scores, the paper's central advantage is an artifact of truncation. A simpler check is to dock the native ligand against the quantum fragment and against the corresponding full experimental pocket and compare the resulting poses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a coarse-grained quantum optimization—each residue mapped to a tetrahedral lattice node, the conformational energy encoded as a four-term Hamiltonian, and the ground state found with a variational quantum eigensolver on a real superconducting processor—produces fragment structures that beat the two dominant deep-learning predictors on the two metrics that matter for docking. Compared with experimentally determined X-ray structures, the quantum fragments give lower root-mean-square deviation (RMSD) of backbone carbon positions in 51 of 55 cases against the older deep-learning model and 40 of 55 against the newest one; compared with the same deep-learning models, docking against native ligands gives lower (more favorable) binding-affinity scores in 53 of 55 and 50 of 55 cases, respectively. The paper reads these results as evidence that quantum-first modeling, grounded in physical energy minimization rather than training-data statistics, can handle short ligand-binding fragments better than data-driven approaches.

Load-bearing premise

The evaluation assumes that ligand-binding quality is captured by docking a short, isolated 5-to-14-residue fragment, treated as a rigid receptor, against its native ligand; if a fragment removed from its protein context does not reproduce the real pocket's binding behavior, the reported docking-affinity advantage over deep-learning models would not carry over to full-length proteins.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • QDockBank gives researchers a reusable, docking-ready benchmark of 55 quantum-generated fragments with metadata, so future quantum structure predictions can be compared on identical terms.
  • If the fragment-level accuracy holds, quantum coarse-grained modeling becomes a practical local-refinement tool for binding pockets, complementing global deep-learning predictions.
  • The reported win rates (96.4% affinity versus the older baseline, 90.9% versus the newer one) set concrete targets that any alternative method—classical or quantum—can be tested against.
  • The dataset's coverage of nearly all amino acid interaction pairs (395 of 400) makes it usable for training or validating energy functions and coarse-grained potentials, not only for docking.
  • The cost figures (more than 60 processor-hours, over one million dollars for 55 fragments) give a concrete baseline for judging whether quantum structure prediction is becoming economically feasible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A fairer head-to-head would dock ligands against full-length structures from the deep-learning models and compare those poses with poses from the quantum fragments; the paper compares all methods on isolated fragments, which likely disadvantages models that rely on global context.
  • If the advantage survives that embedding test, the natural next step is to use the quantum fragment as a local perturbation inside a classical pipeline: generate a full structure, then refine the pocket region with the quantum Hamiltonian.
  • The same Hamiltonian and variational procedure could be run with classical optimization on a simulator for the smaller fragments; a result matching the quantum hardware outputs would suggest the advantage comes from the energy model rather than from quantum noise, which is the paper's stated mechanism for escaping local minima.
  • Averaging the reported cost over the 55 fragments puts each structure at roughly $18,000, so extending the dataset to hundreds of fragments will require either cheaper quantum access or a hybrid screening step that selects only the most informative pockets for quantum computation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. QDockBank is presented as the first large-scale dataset of protein fragment structures generated on real (utility-level) quantum hardware, with 55 fragments of 5–14 residues extracted from ligand-binding pockets of PDBbind proteins. The fragments are predicted via a coarse-grained tetrahedral lattice model encoded into a Hamiltonian and optimized with VQE on IBM Eagle processors. The paper's central claim is that the quantum-generated structures outperform AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 in both RMSD to X-ray structures and AutoDock Vina binding-affinity scores on the corresponding native ligands. The dataset also includes quantum metadata, docking results, and a claimed coverage of amino-acid interaction types.

Significance. If the claims were established, the work would be significant as an engineering demonstration: it would be among the largest uses of real quantum hardware for a biomolecular modeling task, with documented execution times, qubit counts, and a publicly released dataset. The authors deserve credit for reporting extensive hardware metadata and for making the dataset available. However, the central benchmarking claim is compromised by a biologically invalid docking metric, an underspecified Hamiltonian, and an undocumented AlphaFold baseline protocol. The paper's headline conclusion—that quantum-generated fragments outperform AlphaFold in docking affinity—is not supported by the evidence as presented.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.1.2, §4.3.3] The docking-affinity comparison is not a valid measure of ligand-binding affinity. Each predicted fragment is used as a rigid receptor by itself, and AutoDock Vina docks the native ligand from the full PDBbind complex against this isolated 5–14 residue peptide. The native ligand was co-crystallized with the entire protein, so most of the contacts that determine binding lie outside the fragment. A Vina score on a truncated, artificially exposed surface reflects how well the ligand packs against a small piece of the pocket, not the free energy of binding to the actual site. The abstract's claim that QDockBank structures outperform AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 'in terms of ... docking affinity scores' is therefore unsupported, regardless of the numerical results.
  2. [§4.3.1] The Hamiltonian that defines the prediction objective is never specified. Equation (1) lists four terms H_c, H_g, H_d, H_i, but the functional form of each term, the basis of the 'pairwise amino acid interaction energies' in H_i, and the parameter values are not given. The statement that λ_c = λ_g = λ_d = λ_i = 1 is insufficient without units or a definition of the energy scales. This is load-bearing because the predicted structures are the ground states of this Hamiltonian; without specifying it, the method cannot be reproduced, and the 'first-principles' characterization in Section 2.2 and the abstract is contradicted by the later reliance on a statistical potential (Miyazawa–Jernigan) in Section 6.2.
  3. [§6.2] The AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 baseline protocol is not described. The text says only that the comparison was made 'compared with AlphaFold2(AF2) [39] and AF3' and cites ColabFold [39] for AF2. It is not stated whether AF2/AF3 were run on the isolated fragment sequence or on the full protein with the fragment subsequently extracted, which input structures or templates were used, how the predicted structures were aligned or trimmed, or whether the same post-processing (e.g., Open Babel refinement, centering) was applied to the baselines. Without this information, the RMSD and affinity comparisons cannot be evaluated as apples-to-apples, and the central comparison is not established.
  4. [§6.2, Figures 2–4] The performance comparison is reported only as percentages of samples where QDock scores lower, with no confidence intervals, paired statistical tests, or analysis of the magnitude of differences. Given the small sample sizes within each group (e.g., 12 in Group L, 23 in Group M), the claim that the method 'outperforms' AlphaFold is not supported by a significance assessment. This is secondary to the invalid docking metric but further weakens the headline comparison.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract / §2.2] The paper repeatedly calls the approach 'first-principles' while the interaction term H_i is said to encode pairwise amino acid interaction energies, and Section 6.2 explicitly invokes the Miyazawa–Jernigan statistical potential. This terminology should be revised to avoid implying the method is parameter-free.
  2. [§4.2] The text states that the dataset comprises 'more than 2,000 docking tests,' but 55 fragments × 20 docking runs gives 1,100 docking simulations; if the top-10 poses are counted, the number is larger. The counting convention should be clarified.
  3. [§6.2] The AlphaFold3 baseline is not cited at the point of comparison; reference [39] is ColabFold. A precise citation for the AF3 version and protocol should be added.
  4. [§7.1, Table 4] The table reports average docking metrics for a single PDB entry (4jpy). The text would benefit from error bars or per-run values, since 20 docking runs with different seeds are described but only averages are shown.
  5. [§4.3.3] The atomic reconstruction step is described as 'applying standard amino acid templates' without specifying which templates or how side-chain conformations were chosen; this is relevant because side-chain placement can affect subsequent docking scores.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the core comparisons are externally benchmarked against experimental structures and AlphaFold predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is not circular in the sense defined here. The predicted fragment structures are produced by a VQE optimization on a Hamiltonian whose constraint and interaction terms are stated in the paper (§4.3.1), and the resulting structures are then evaluated externally by two independent criteria: RMSD against experimental X-ray structures (§6.1.1) and AutoDock Vina docking affinity scores (§6.1.2). Neither evaluation metric is used as an input to the variational optimization, nor is any parameter fitted to the reported RMSD or affinity outcomes. The comparison against AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 is likewise an external, benchmark-style comparison rather than a reduction to the paper's own assumptions. The paper's use of empirically derived interaction potentials (e.g., the Miyazawa–Jernigan model referenced in §6.2) weakens the rhetorical claim of 'first-principles' modeling, but this is a labeling and correctness concern, not a circularity: the potentials are independent, pre-existing inputs and not derived from the evaluation metrics being predicted. Concerns about whether docking an isolated 5–14 residue fragment against a native ligand measures true binding affinity are substantive questions about metric validity, but they do not make the derivation circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain, fitted-input-as-prediction, or definitional equivalence is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on an empirical Hamiltonian whose interaction terms are never specified, hand-set weights, and an evaluation protocol that assumes fragment-only docking is biologically meaningful. The quantum hardware adds execution cost but does not remove these modeling assumptions.

free parameters (3)
  • Hamiltonian weights lambda_c, lambda_g, lambda_d, lambda_i = all set to 1
    Chosen by hand in Section 4.3.1. No sensitivity analysis is given, and these weights determine every predicted structure.
  • ancilla qubit overhead = 5 to 10 additional qubits
    Section 5.3. The number of ancilla qubits is chosen to reduce circuit depth but is not optimized or reported per fragment.
  • VQE optimization iterations = over 200
    Section 5.2. The stopping criterion for COBYLA is stated as over 200 iterations with no convergence analysis.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption A protein fragment conformation can be represented as a self-avoiding walk on a tetrahedral lattice with fixed bond length and 109.4 degree bond angles.
    Section 4.3.1 introduces this coarse-graining, which discards side-chain and continuous backbone degrees of freedom.
  • domain assumption The total Hamiltonian H_t = Hc + Hg + Hd + Hi with all weights set to 1 accurately ranks protein fragment conformations by stability.
    Section 4.3.1 names the four terms but gives no derivation or validation of the energy function.
  • ad hoc to paper The pairwise amino acid interaction energies used in H_i are valid, despite their source and functional form never being specified.
    Section 4.3.1 refers to H_i without a formula; the later citation of Miyazawa-Jernigan (Section 6.2) suggests an empirical statistical potential, not a first-principles interaction.
  • domain assumption VQE with COBYLA and EfficientSU2 on noisy 127-qubit hardware finds the global ground state of the classical Hamiltonian.
    Sections 4.3.2 and 5.2 provide no convergence evidence and instead speculate that noise helps escape local minima.
  • domain assumption AutoDock Vina scores on isolated 5 to 14 residue fragments reflect ligand binding affinity.
    Sections 4.3.3 and 6.1.2 use the fragment as a rigid receptor, omitting the rest of the binding pocket, so the resulting scores are not a valid binding measurement.
  • domain assumption Standard amino acid templates can faithfully reconstruct atomic coordinates from lattice conformations.
    Section 4.3.3 relies on this reconstruction step, which directly determines the reported RMSD and docking results.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of QDockBank: A Dataset for Ligand Docking on Protein Fragments Predicted on Utility-Level Quantum Computers." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P4A7S4RR

@misc{pith2026250800837,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: QDockBank: A Dataset for Ligand Docking on Protein Fragments Predicted on Utility-Level Quantum Computers},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P4A7S4RR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.00837}
}
read the original abstract

Protein structure prediction is a core challenge in computational biology, particularly for fragments within ligand-binding regions, where accurate modeling is still difficult. Quantum computing offers a novel first-principles modeling paradigm, but its application is currently limited by hardware constraints, high computational cost, and the lack of a standardized benchmarking dataset. In this work, we present QDockBank-the first large-scale protein fragment structure dataset generated entirely using utility-level quantum computers, specifically designed for protein-ligand docking tasks. QDockBank comprises 55 protein fragments extracted from ligand-binding pockets. The dataset was generated through tens of hours of execution on superconducting quantum processors, making it the first quantum-based protein structure dataset with a total computational cost exceeding one million USD. Experimental evaluations demonstrate that structures predicted by QDockBank outperform those predicted by AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 in terms of both RMSD and docking affinity scores. QDockBank serves as a new benchmark for evaluating quantum-based protein structure prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.00837 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Overview of the protein fragment structure pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Distribution of experimental results across all [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Evaluation metrics—affinity and RMSD—were analyzed within QDockBank and compared against results [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Frequency distribution of amino acid interac [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Docking case for PDB entry 4jpy: predicted fragment, ligand structure, and docking overlay. The visualized docking results show that the ligand is ac￾curately embedded into the surface of the QDockBank￾predicted protein structure, making direct contact with protein ato…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: RMSD-based structural comparison of the pre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 41 canonical work pages

  1. [39]

    Colabfold: making protein folding ac- cessible to all.Nature methods, 19(6):679–682, 2022

    Milot Mirdita, Konstantin Sch ¨utze, Yoshitaka Mori- waki, Lim Heo, Sergey Ovchinnikov, and Martin Steinegger. Colabfold: making protein folding ac- cessible to all.Nature methods, 19(6):679–682, 2022. 14

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: mea- surement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design.Protein science, 7(9):1884–1897, 1998

    Jie Liang, Clare Woodward, and Herbert Edelsbrun- ner. Anatomy of protein pockets and cavities: mea- surement of binding site geometry and implications for ligand design.Protein science, 7(9):1884–1897, 1998

    work page 1998

  3. [2]

    Accurate structure predic- tion of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3

    Josh Abramson, Jonas Adler, Jack Dunger, Richard Evans, Tim Green, Alexander Pritzel, Olaf Ron- neberger, Lindsay Willmore, Andrew J Ballard, Joshua Bambrick, et al. Accurate structure predic- tion of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3. Nature, 630(8016):493–500, 2024

    2024

  4. [3]

    Highly accurate pro- tein structure prediction with alphafold.nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    John Jumper, Richard Evans, Alexander Pritzel, Tim Green, Michael Figurnov, Olaf Ronneberger, Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool, Russ Bates, Augustin ˇZ´ıdek, Anna Potapenko, et al. Highly accurate pro- tein structure prediction with alphafold.nature, 596(7873):583–589, 2021

    work page 2021

  5. [4]

    Protein complex prediction with alphafold-multimer.biorxiv, pages 2021–10, 2021

    Richard Evans, Michael O’Neill, Alexander Pritzel, Natasha Antropova, Andrew Senior, Tim Green, Augustin ˇZ´ıdek, Russ Bates, Sam Blackwell, Ja- son Yim, et al. Protein complex prediction with alphafold-multimer.biorxiv, pages 2021–10, 2021

    work page 2021

  6. [5]

    Efficient quan- tum algorithm for lattice protein folding.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(1):015056, 2024

    Youle Wang and Xiangzhen Zhou. Efficient quan- tum algorithm for lattice protein folding.Quantum Science and Technology, 10(1):015056, 2024

    work page 2024

  7. [6]

    Protein dock- ing and complementarity.Journal of molecular bi- ology, 221(1):327–346, 1991

    Brian K Shoichet and Irwin D Kuntz. Protein dock- ing and complementarity.Journal of molecular bi- ology, 221(1):327–346, 1991

    work page 1991

  8. [7]

    Resource-efficient quan- tum algorithm for protein folding.npj Quantum In- formation, 7(1):38, 2021

    Anton Robert, Panagiotis Kl Barkoutsos, Stefan Wo- erner, and Ivano Tavernelli. Resource-efficient quan- tum algorithm for protein folding.npj Quantum In- formation, 7(1):38, 2021

    work page 2021

Show all 44 references
  1. [8]

    A perspective on protein structure prediction using quantum comput- ers.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(9):3359–3378, 2024

    Hakan Doga, Bryan Raubenolt, Fabio Cumbo, Jayadev Joshi, Frank P DiFilippo, Jun Qin, Daniel Blankenberg, and Omar Shehab. A perspective on protein structure prediction using quantum comput- ers.Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation, 20(9):3359–3378, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    The worldwide protein data bank (wwpdb): ensuring a single, uniform archive of pdb data.Nucleic acids research, 35(suppl 1):D301–D303, 2007

    Helen Berman, Kim Henrick, Haruki Nakamura, and John L Markley. The worldwide protein data bank (wwpdb): ensuring a single, uniform archive of pdb data.Nucleic acids research, 35(suppl 1):D301–D303, 2007

    2007

  3. [10]

    Protein data bank (pdb): database of three-dimensional structural information of bio- logical macromolecules.Biological Crystallogra- phy, 54(6):1078–1084, 1998

    Joel L Sussman, Dawei Lin, Jiansheng Jiang, Nancy O Manning, Jaime Prilusky, Otto Ritter, and Enrique E Abola. Protein data bank (pdb): database of three-dimensional structural information of bio- logical macromolecules.Biological Crystallogra- phy, 54(6):1078–1084, 1998

    1998

  4. [11]

    Protein data bank (pdb): the sin- gle global macromolecular structure archive.Pro- tein crystallography: methods and protocols, pages 627–641, 2017

    Stephen K Burley, Helen M Berman, Gerard J Kleywegt, John L Markley, Haruki Nakamura, and Sameer Velankar. Protein data bank (pdb): the sin- gle global macromolecular structure archive.Pro- tein crystallography: methods and protocols, pages 627–641, 2017

    2017

  5. [12]

    The protein data bank.Bio- logical Crystallography, 58(6):899–907, 2002

    Helen M Berman, Tammy Battistuz, Talapady N Bhat, Wolfgang F Bluhm, Philip E Bourne, Kyle Burkhardt, Zukang Feng, Gary L Gilliland, Lisa Iype, Shri Jain, et al. The protein data bank.Bio- logical Crystallography, 58(6):899–907, 2002

    2002

  6. [13]

    Orengo, Frances M

    Christine A. Orengo, Frances M. G. Pearl, James E. Bray, Annabel E. Todd, AC Martin, L Lo Conte, and Janet M. Thornton. The cath database provides in- sights into protein structure/function relationships. Nucleic acids research, 27(1):275–279, 1999

    1999

  7. [14]

    The cath database: an extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics.Nucleic acids research, 31(1):452–455, 2003

    Frances MG Pearl, CF Bennett, James E Bray, An- drew P Harrison, Nigel Martin, A Shepherd, Ian Sil- litoe, J Thornton, and Christine A Orengo. The cath database: an extended protein family resource for structural and functional genomics.Nucleic acids research, 31(1):452–455, 2003

    2003

  8. [15]

    Scop: a structural classifica- tion of proteins database for the investigation of se- quences and structures.Journal of molecular biol- ogy, 247(4):536–540, 1995

    Alexey G Murzin, Steven E Brenner, Tim Hubbard, and Cyrus Chothia. Scop: a structural classifica- tion of proteins database for the investigation of se- quences and structures.Journal of molecular biol- ogy, 247(4):536–540, 1995

    1995

  9. [16]

    Mihaly Varadi, Stephen Anyango, Mandar Desh- pande, Sreenath Nair, Cindy Natassia, Galabina Yor- danova, David Yuan, Oana Stroe, Gemma Wood, Agata Laydon, et al. Alphafold protein structure database: massively expanding the structural cov- erage of protein-sequence space with ...

    2022

  10. [17]

    Alphafold protein structure database in 2024: providing structure cov- erage for over 214 million protein sequences.Nu- cleic acids research, 52(D1):D368–D375, 2024

    Mihaly Varadi, Damian Bertoni, Paulyna Magana, Urmila Paramval, Ivanna Pidruchna, Malarvizhi Radhakrishnan, Maxim Tsenkov, Sreenath Nair, Milot Mirdita, Jingi Yeo, et al. Alphafold protein structure database in 2024: providing structure cov- erage for over 214 million protein ...

    2024

  11. [18]

    Evaluation of alphafold2 structures as docking targets.Protein Science, 32(1):e4530, 2023

    Matthew Holcomb, Ya-Ting Chang, David S Good- sell, and Stefano Forli. Evaluation of alphafold2 structures as docking targets.Protein Science, 32(1):e4530, 2023. 13

    2023

  12. [19]

    Swisssidechain: a molecular and structural database of non-natural sidechains.Nucleic acids research, 41(D1):D327–D332, 2012

    David Gfeller, Olivier Michielin, and Vincent Zoete. Swisssidechain: a molecular and structural database of non-natural sidechains.Nucleic acids research, 41(D1):D327–D332, 2012

    2012

  13. [20]

    The pdbbind database: methodologies and updates.Journal of medicinal chemistry, 48(12):4111–4119, 2005

    Renxiao Wang, Xueliang Fang, Yipin Lu, Chao-Yie Yang, and Shaomeng Wang. The pdbbind database: methodologies and updates.Journal of medicinal chemistry, 48(12):4111–4119, 2005

    2005

  14. [21]

    Pdb-wide collection of binding data: current status of the pdbbind database.Bioinformatics, 31(3):405– 412, 2015

    Zhihai Liu, Yan Li, Li Han, Jie Li, Jie Liu, Zhixiong Zhao, Wei Nie, Yuchen Liu, and Renxiao Wang. Pdb-wide collection of binding data: current status of the pdbbind database.Bioinformatics, 31(3):405– 412, 2015

    2015

  15. [22]

    Oleg Trott and Arthur J Olson. Autodock vina: improving the speed and accuracy of docking with a new scoring function, efficient optimization, and multithreading.Journal of computational chemistry, 31(2):455–461, 2010

    2010

  16. [23]

    Yang Yue, Shu Li, Yihua Cheng, Lie Wang, Tingjun Hou, Zexuan Zhu, and Shan He. Integration of molecular coarse-grained model into geometric rep- resentation learning framework for protein-protein complex property prediction.Nature Communica- tions, 15(1):9629, 2024

    2024

  17. [24]

    The variational quantum eigensolver: a re- view of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    Jules Tilly, Hongxiang Chen, Shuxiang Cao, Dario Picozzi, Kanav Setia, Ying Li, Edward Grant, Leonard Wossnig, Ivan Rungger, George H Booth, et al. The variational quantum eigensolver: a re- view of methods and best practices.Physics Reports, 986:1–128, 2022

    2022

  18. [25]

    Evaluating the performance of some lo- cal optimizers for variational quantum classifiers

    Nisheeth Joshi, Pragya Katyayan, and Syed Afroz Ahmed. Evaluating the performance of some lo- cal optimizers for variational quantum classifiers. InJournal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 1817, page 012015. IOP Publishing, 2021

    2021

  19. [26]

    Open babel: An open chemical toolbox

    Noel M O’Boyle, Michael Banck, Craig A James, Chris Morley, Tim Vandermeersch, and Geoffrey R Hutchison. Open babel: An open chemical toolbox. Journal of cheminformatics, 3:1–14, 2011

    2011

  20. [27]

    Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier

    Jerry Chow, Oliver Dial, and Jay Gambetta. Ibm quantum breaks the 100-qubit processor barrier. IBM Research Blog, 2, 2021

    2021

  21. [28]

    Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023

    Youngseok Kim, Andrew Eddins, Sajant Anand, Ken Xuan Wei, Ewout Van Den Berg, Sami Rosen- blatt, Hasan Nayfeh, Yantao Wu, Michael Zaletel, Kristan Temme, et al. Evidence for the utility of quantum computing before fault tolerance.Nature, 618(7965):500–505, 2023

    2023

  22. [29]

    Engineering high-coherence su- perconducting qubits.Nature Reviews Materials, 6(10):875–891, 2021

    Irfan Siddiqi. Engineering high-coherence su- perconducting qubits.Nature Reviews Materials, 6(10):875–891, 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Error per single-qubit gate below 10- 4 in a superconducting qubit.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):111, 2023

    Zhiyuan Li, Pei Liu, Peng Zhao, Zhenyu Mi, Huikai Xu, Xuehui Liang, Tang Su, Weijie Sun, Guangming Xue, Jing-Ning Zhang, et al. Error per single-qubit gate below 10- 4 in a superconducting qubit.npj Quantum Information, 9(1):111, 2023

    2023

  24. [31]

    Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term de- vices.Physical Review X, 10(2):021067, 2020

    Leo Zhou, Sheng-Tao Wang, Soonwon Choi, Hannes Pichler, and Mikhail D Lukin. Quantum approximate optimization algorithm: Performance, mechanism, and implementation on near-term de- vices.Physical Review X, 10(2):021067, 2020

    2020

  25. [32]

    Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum de- vices

    Gushu Li, Yufei Ding, and Yuan Xie. Tackling the qubit mapping problem for nisq-era quantum de- vices. InProceedings of the twenty-fourth interna- tional conference on architectural support for pro- gramming languages and operating systems, pages 1001–1014, 2019

    2019

  26. [33]

    Qubit mapping based on subgraph isomorphism and fil- tered depth-limited search.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1777–1788, 2020

    Sanjiang Li, Xiangzhen Zhou, and Yuan Feng. Qubit mapping based on subgraph isomorphism and fil- tered depth-limited search.IEEE Transactions on Computers, 70(11):1777–1788, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    The pdbbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein- ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures.Journal of medicinal chemistry, 47(12):2977–2980, 2004

    Renxiao Wang, Xueliang Fang, Yipin Lu, and Shaomeng Wang. The pdbbind database: Collection of binding affinities for protein- ligand complexes with known three-dimensional structures.Journal of medicinal chemistry, 47(12):2977–2980, 2004

    2004

  28. [35]

    Biopython: freely available python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics.Bioinformatics, 25(11):1422, 2009

    Peter JA Cock, Tiago Antao, Jeffrey T Chang, Brad A Chapman, Cymon J Cox, Andrew Dalke, Iddo Friedberg, Thomas Hamelryck, Frank Kauff, Bartek Wilczynski, et al. Biopython: freely available python tools for computational molecular biology and bioinformatics.Bioinformatics, 25(1...

    2009

  29. [36]

    Biopython: Python tools for computational biology.ACM Sigbio Newsletter, 20(2):15–19, 2000

    Brad Chapman and Jeffrey Chang. Biopython: Python tools for computational biology.ACM Sigbio Newsletter, 20(2):15–19, 2000

    2000

  30. [37]

    Pushing the backbone in protein-protein docking.Structure, 24(10):1821–1829, 2016

    Daisuke Kuroda and Jeffrey J Gray. Pushing the backbone in protein-protein docking.Structure, 24(10):1821–1829, 2016

    2016

  31. [38]

    Calcula- tion of protein-ligand binding affinities.Annu

    Michael K Gilson and Huan-Xiang Zhou. Calcula- tion of protein-ligand binding affinities.Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct., 36(1):21–42, 2007

    2007

  32. [40]

    Estima- tion of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approxi- mation.Macromolecules, 18(3):534–552, 1985

    Sanzo Miyazawa and Robert L Jernigan. Estima- tion of effective interresidue contact energies from protein crystal structures: quasi-chemical approxi- mation.Macromolecules, 18(3):534–552, 1985

    1985

  33. [41]

    On the prediction of protein structure: the significance of the root-mean-square deviation.Journal of molecu- lar biology, 138(2):321–333, 1980

    Fred E Cohen and Michael JE Sternberg. On the prediction of protein structure: the significance of the root-mean-square deviation.Journal of molecu- lar biology, 138(2):321–333, 1980

    1980

  34. [42]

    Pymol: An open-source molecular graphics tool.CCP4 Newsl

    Warren L DeLano et al. Pymol: An open-source molecular graphics tool.CCP4 Newsl. Protein Crys- tallogr, 40(1):82–92, 2002

    2002

  35. [43]

    Ucsf chimera—a visualization system for exploratory re- search and analysis.Journal of computational chem- istry, 25(13):1605–1612, 2004

    Eric F Pettersen, Thomas D Goddard, Conrad C Huang, Gregory S Couch, Daniel M Greenblatt, Elaine C Meng, and Thomas E Ferrin. Ucsf chimera—a visualization system for exploratory re- search and analysis.Journal of computational chem- istry, 25(13):1605–1612, 2004

    2004

  36. [44]

    Vmd: visual molecular dynamics.Journal of molecular graphics, 14(1):33–38, 1996

    William Humphrey, Andrew Dalke, and Klaus Schulten. Vmd: visual molecular dynamics.Journal of molecular graphics, 14(1):33–38, 1996. 15

    1996

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.