Unlocking Nature's Pharmacy: How Deep Learning is Revolutionizing Virtual Screening for Natural Product Drug Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive exploration of the transformative role of deep learning (DL) in the virtual screening of natural products for drug discovery. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it begins by establishing the unique value of natural products as drug sources and the paradigm shift enabled by artificial intelligence [citation:1][citation:6]. It then details cutting-edge methodological frameworks, including specialized foundation models [citation:5], multi-stage screening platforms [citation:2], and novel efficiency-focused architectures [citation:9]. The discussion critically addresses persistent challenges such as data limitations, model generalization, and interpretability, offering practical optimization strategies [citation:1][citation:3]. Finally, the article presents a comparative analysis of performance benchmarks and validation protocols, equipping scientists with the knowledge to evaluate and implement these advanced tools. The synthesis concludes with key takeaways and future directions for integrating DL-powered virtual screening into robust, accelerated biomedical research pipelines.

From Forest to Lab: Why Natural Products Are a Drug Discovery Goldmine and How AI Opens the Vault

The Enduring Legacy of Natural Products in Modern Medicine

Natural products (NPs)—chemical substances produced by living organisms—have served as humanity’s primary source of medicine for millennia and continue to underpin modern drug discovery [1]. Their enduring legacy is quantified by the fact that approximately 41% of all new drug approvals between 1981 and 2014 were natural products or direct derivatives thereof [1]. This success stems from their unparalleled structural diversity and evolutionary optimization for biological interaction, granting them a superior coverage of pharmacological space compared to synthetic compound libraries [2]. Despite a late-20th century shift toward combinatorial chemistry and high-throughput screening of synthetic libraries, the slowing pace of new drug approvals has refocused attention on NPs as a crucial resource for addressing complex diseases [1].

The integration of advanced computational methods, particularly deep learning (DL), is revolutionizing how researchers exploit this resource. Traditional NP discovery, reliant on bioactivity-guided fractionation, is labor-intensive and low-throughput. Contemporary in silico strategies now enable the systematic virtual screening of vast NP databases against therapeutic targets, efficiently identifying lead compounds with validated mechanisms of action [3] [4]. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols for leveraging deep learning in NP research, framing them within the essential experimental and cheminformatic workflows required for modern drug development.

Quantitative Landscape of Natural Products in Drug Discovery

The therapeutic utility of NPs spans broad chemical classes and disease areas. The following tables summarize their key contributions and characteristics, providing a quantitative foundation for research planning.

Table 1: Major Natural Product Classes in Therapeutics Table summarizing key classes of natural products, their sources, notable examples, and primary therapeutic uses.

NP Class	Primary Source(s)	Representative Drug(s)	Key Therapeutic Areas	Unique Structural Traits
Phytochemicals	Plants (primary & secondary metabolites)	Paclitaxel, Digoxin, Aspirin [1]	Oncology, Cardiology, Analgesia	Phenolic acids, stilbenes, flavonoids; often compliant with "Rule of Five" [1].
Fungal Metabolites	Fungi	Lovastatin, Ciclosporin [1]	Hypercholesterolemia, Immunosuppression	Diverse macrocyclic structures; prolific source of antibiotics.
Toxins & Venoms	Snakes, Cone snails, etc.	Captopril (derived from snake venom) [1]	Hypertension, Pain	Peptides and small proteins with high target specificity and potency.
Marine NPs	Sponges, Tunicates, etc.	Cytarabine (Ara-C) [1]	Oncology, Virology	Halogenated, sulfur-rich, and complex polycyclic structures.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of a DL Model for NP Virtual Screening (Representative Study) Table detailing the architecture, hyperparameters, and performance outcomes of a deep learning model applied to virtual screening of NPs against TNF-α [4].

Model Aspect	Specification / Result
Target Protein	Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α), PDB: 2AZ5 (refined) [4]
Training Data	953 compounds with pIC50 values from ChEMBL (ID:1825) [4]
Input Features	342 PubChem binary fingerprints (from 881 initial descriptors) [4]
Model Architecture	5 hidden layers (Neurons: 600, 560, 300, 420, 700) [4]
Key Performance Metrics	MSE: 0.6, MAPE: 10%, MAE: 0.5 [4]
Virtual Screening Library	2563 compounds from Selleckchem database [4]
Top Candidates Identified	Imperialine, Veratramine, Gelsemine [4]

Application Notes & Protocols

This section outlines core methodologies for integrating deep learning-based virtual screening into natural product research pipelines.

3.1 Protocol: Deep Learning Workflow for Target-Based Virtual Screening of NPs

This protocol details the process of developing and deploying a DL model to predict the bioactivity of natural compounds against a specific protein target, as exemplified in a study targeting TNF-α for rheumatoid arthritis [4].

3.1.1 Data Curation and Preparation

• Target Selection and Preparation: Identify a high-resolution 3D structure of the target protein (e.g., from the Protein Data Bank). Assess and refine the structure for completeness using homology modeling tools like SWISS-MODEL if necessary [4].
• Bioactivity Data Collection: Retrieve a robust set of known active and inactive compounds for the target. Public databases like ChEMBL are primary sources. For the TNF-α example, 953 compounds with reported IC50 values were obtained [4].
• Data Standardization:
  • Convert concentration values (e.g., IC50) to a uniform negative logarithmic scale (pIC50).
  • Standardize compound structures using canonical SMILES representations [4].
• Molecular Featurization: Generate molecular descriptors or fingerprints. The PubChem fingerprint (881 binary bits) is a common choice. Use software like PaDEL to calculate fingerprints from SMILES strings [4].
• Feature Selection: Apply variance thresholding to remove non-informative, low-variance descriptors, significantly reducing dimensionality (e.g., from 881 to 342 descriptors) [4].

3.1.2 Deep Learning Model Development

• Model Architecture Design: Construct a sequential neural network. The example model employed five hidden layers with varying neuron counts (600, 560, 300, 420, 700) and different activation functions (tanh, relu, elu) to capture complex structure-activity relationships [4].
• Hyperparameter Optimization: Utilize automated search methods like RandomizedSearchCV to optimize hyperparameters (e.g., number of layers, neurons per layer, activation functions, dropout rates, initializers). The final architecture for the TNF-α model is specified in Table 2 [4].
• Model Training & Validation: Split the curated dataset into training, validation, and test sets (e.g., 80/10/10). Train the model using the training set, monitor performance on the validation set to prevent overfitting, and finally evaluate on the held-out test set. Standard regression metrics (MSE, MAE, R²) should be reported.

3.1.3 Virtual Screening and Hit Identification

• Library Preparation: Prepare a database of natural product structures for screening (e.g., the Selleckchem library of 2563 NPs). Apply the exact same featurization and feature selection pipeline used for the training data [4].
• Deployment & Prediction: Use the trained DL model to predict the bioactivity (pIC50) for every compound in the screening library.
• Hit Prioritization: Rank all compounds by their predicted activity. Select the top fraction (e.g., top 5%) for subsequent analysis. In the referenced study, the top 128 compounds were selected from 2563 [4].

3.2 Protocol: Post-Screening Validation Workflow

Computational hits require rigorous validation through established cheminformatic and biophysical methods.

• Drug-Likeness and ADMET Filtering: Filter top-ranked hits using rules (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five) and predictive models for Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET). This removes compounds with poor pharmacokinetic profiles early [4].
• Molecular Docking: Perform molecular docking of the filtered hits against the refined 3D structure of the target protein. Use software like AutoDock Vina or Glide. Set a stringent binding affinity threshold (e.g., ≤ -8.7 kcal/mol) to identify promising leads [4].
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulation: Subject the best protein-ligand complexes from docking to all-atom MD simulations (e.g., for 200 ns) to assess binding stability and conformational dynamics. Key analyses include:
  • Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD) of the protein-ligand complex.
  • Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF) of protein residues.
  • Radius of Gyration (Rg) and Solvent Accessible Surface Area (SASA).
  • Hydrogen bond analysis [4].
• Binding Free Energy Calculation: Use end-point methods like MM/GBSA (Molecular Mechanics/Generalized Born Surface Area) on MD trajectories to calculate the final binding free energy, providing a quantitative estimate of binding strength [4].

Visual Workflows and Pathways

The following diagrams illustrate the integrated computational-experimental pipeline for deep learning-driven NP discovery.

Deep learning workflow for virtual screening of natural products.

Integrated drug discovery pipeline from computation to experiment.

Target pathway for NP-based therapy in rheumatoid arthritis.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

A successful NP discovery program relies on integrated computational and experimental resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for NP-Based Drug Discovery Table listing key databases, software tools, and laboratory materials required for computational and experimental research on natural products.

Category	Resource Name	Primary Function & Utility in NP Research
Public Databases	PubChem [3], ChEMBL [3]	Source of chemical structures, bioactivity data, and pathways for model training and validation.
Specialized NP Libraries	Selleckchem Natural Product Library [4]	Curated, commercially available collections of purified NPs for virtual and experimental screening.
Cheminformatics Tools	PaDEL-Descriptor [4], RDKit	Generate molecular fingerprints and descriptors from compound structures for machine learning.
Deep Learning Frameworks	TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-learn	Develop, train, and deploy custom predictive models for virtual screening.
Molecular Modeling Software	AutoDock Vina, GROMACS, AMBER	Perform molecular docking, molecular dynamics simulations, and binding free energy calculations.
Laboratory Reagents (for Validation)	Recombinant Target Proteins (e.g., TNF-α)	For in vitro binding affinity assays (SPR, ELISA) and enzymatic activity inhibition studies.
	Cell-based Assay Kits (e.g., NF-κB reporter)	For functional cellular validation of anti-inflammatory or other target-specific activity.
	Analytical Standards (Pure NP Compounds)	For hit verification by LC-MS/MS and for use as benchmarks in biological assays.

The discovery of new therapeutics from natural products represents a frontier of immense promise and formidable challenge. These compounds, derived from plants, microbes, and marine organisms, possess unparalleled chemical diversity and a proven historical track record in drug discovery. However, the very attributes that make them valuable—structural complexity, multi-target pharmacology, and intricate biosynthesis—also render them exceptionally difficult to study using conventional paradigms [5]. The modern drug discovery pipeline, already strained by high attrition rates and escalating costs, meets its match in natural product research. Traditional high-throughput screening (HTS) methods, while successful for synthetic compound libraries, are poorly suited to the unique demands of natural extracts and complex metabolites. The process is bottlenecked by the need for large quantities of rare biological material, the labor-intensive isolation of active principles, and the challenge of deconvoluting complex mixtures [6]. Consequently, the translation of nature's chemical wealth into viable drug candidates remains inefficient and prohibitively expensive.

This article posits that deep learning (DL) for virtual screening is not merely an incremental improvement but a necessary paradigm shift for revitalizing natural product-based drug discovery. By reframing the problems of molecular complexity as data patterns and scarcity as a challenge for generative models, artificial intelligence (AI) provides a coherent framework to overcome these historic barriers [7]. The following sections will dissect the core challenges of data scarcity and cost, detail contemporary AI-driven solutions and protocols, and provide a roadmap for integrating these technologies into a robust research workflow.

The Core Impediments: Scarcity, Cost, and Complexity

The Data Scarcity Dilemma in AI Model Training

The performance of deep learning models is fundamentally gated by the availability of large, high-quality, and well-annotated datasets. Natural product research suffers from a acute shortage of such data, creating a significant bottleneck for AI applications.

• Limited Annotated Bioactivity Data: Public repositories contain activity data for only a fraction of known natural products, and the data is often sparse, noisy, and generated from heterogeneous assay conditions, complicating model training [5].
• Scarcity of Negative Data: A critical and often overlooked issue is the profound lack of reliably confirmed inactive compounds. Publication bias favors positive results, meaning most datasets are heavily imbalanced. This lack of "negative data" severely limits the ability of models to learn what distinguishes an active compound from an inactive one, leading to over-optimistic predictions and poor real-world performance [8].
• The InertDB Solution: To address the negative data gap, resources like InertDB have been developed. It provides a curated set of experimentally confirmed inactive compounds and uses generative AI to expand this chemical space, offering a more robust dataset for training predictive models that require both positive and negative examples [8].

The High Cost of Traditional Genomic and Screening Workflows

The experimental foundation of modern natural product research—including genome sequencing for biosynthetic gene cluster discovery and HTS for bioactivity—requires substantial capital and operational investment.

• Sequencing and Library Preparation Costs: Next-generation sequencing (NGS) is essential for identifying the genetic potential of natural source organisms. The library preparation step, which converts DNA/RNA into a format readable by sequencers, is a major cost component. The market for NGS library preparation automation is growing rapidly (expected to reach USD 4.32 billion by 2032) [9], driven by the need for efficiency but indicative of high upfront technology costs. Specialized kits for challenging samples (e.g., degraded or low-input) carry a significant premium [10].
• Traditional Screening Economics: Conventional HTS involves physically testing thousands to millions of compounds against a biological target. The costs encompass reagent kits, specialized robotics, laboratory space, and personnel. The attrition rate is staggering, with approximately one million screened compounds yielding a single marketable drug [11]. For natural products, costs are further amplified by the need for extract preparation, compound isolation, and the frequent re-screening of fractions.

Table 1: Market and Cost Overview for Key Experimental Components

Component	Market Size & Growth	Key Cost Drivers & Challenges
DNA Library Prep Kits	Global market valued at USD 1.87B (2024), projected CAGR of ~9-13% [10] [12].	High cost of specialized kits (e.g., for low-input, single-cell); requirement for skilled personnel; instrument costs [10].
NGS Library Prep Automation	Market growing from USD 2.34B (2025) to USD 4.32B (2032) at 9.1% CAGR [9].	Capital investment in automated workstations; integration with existing workflows; reagent consumption.
Traditional HTS	Not a discrete market, but a pervasive cost center in drug discovery.	Compound/library acquisition, robotics maintenance, assay reagents, and high compound attrition rate leading to low return on investment [11].

AI-Enabled Solutions: Deep Learning for Virtual Screening

Deep learning offers a suite of tools to directly address the challenges of cost and data scarcity by enabling intelligent, in silico prioritization before any wet-lab experiment begins.

Virtual Screening as a Cost-Efficiency Multiplier

Virtual screening uses computational models to rank compounds by their predicted likelihood of activity, dramatically reducing the number of physical tests required. By filtering vast virtual libraries down to a manageable subset of high-probability hits, DL-powered virtual screening acts as a force multiplier for laboratory efficiency and budget [11] [7].

• Performance Advantage: Modern DL pipelines significantly outperform older computational methods. For example, the VirtuDockDL platform demonstrated 99% accuracy and an AUC of 0.99 on a HER2 inhibitor benchmark dataset, surpassing tools like AutoDock Vina (82% accuracy) and DeepChem (89% accuracy) [11]. This increased predictive accuracy translates directly into higher hit rates in subsequent experimental validation.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Screening Methods

Method	Typical Accuracy / Hit Rate	Key Advantage	Primary Limitation
Traditional HTS	Very low (0.01-0.1% hit rate); high absolute number of hits due to massive scale.	Experimental, empirical data.	Extremely high cost, low efficiency, massive resource consumption [11].
Traditional VS (e.g., AutoDock Vina)	Moderate (varies widely; ~82% in benchmark [11]).	Low cost per compound screened; structure-based insights.	Computational intensity for large libraries; accuracy limited by scoring functions [13].
DL-Powered VS (e.g., VirtuDockDL)	High (e.g., 99% accuracy on benchmark datasets) [11].	Superior accuracy and speed; learns complex structure-activity relationships; ideal for large libraries.	Dependent on quality/quantity of training data; model interpretability can be low [5] [7].

Overcoming Data Scarcity with Advanced DL Architectures

Innovative DL model designs help mitigate the problem of small datasets.

• Graph Neural Networks (GNNs): GNNs are uniquely suited for natural products as they operate directly on molecular graphs, treating atoms as nodes and bonds as edges. This allows the model to inherently learn the structural and topological features critical to a compound's activity, making efficient use of available data [11] [7].
• Generative AI and Data Augmentation: As exemplified by InertDB, generative models can create novel, synthetically accessible compounds or expand datasets of inactive molecules. This "data augmentation" helps balance training sets and explores broader chemical spaces, partially alleviating the scarcity of real experimental data [8].
• Transfer Learning: Models pre-trained on large, general chemical databases (e.g., PubChem) can be fine-tuned on smaller, specialized natural product datasets. This allows the model to bring learned chemical knowledge from a data-rich domain to a data-poor one, improving performance with limited task-specific examples [5].

Diagram 1: AI-Enhanced vs. Traditional Virtual Screening Workflow

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Implementing a GNN-Based Virtual Screening Pipeline (VirtuDockDL)

This protocol outlines the steps to deploy a deep learning virtual screening pipeline for identifying potential natural product-derived hits against a target of interest [11].

1. Objective: To computationally screen a library of natural product structures (in SMILES format) against a defined protein target to prioritize compounds for experimental validation.

2. Materials & Computational Environment:

• Software: Python (3.8+), PyTorch, PyTorch Geometric, RDKit, VirtuDockDL GitHub repository.
• Hardware: GPU-enabled system (e.g., NVIDIA CUDA) recommended for model training.
• Data:
  • Target protein structure (PDB format).
  • Curated library of natural product SMILES strings.
  • Active/inactive training data for the target (if available for fine-tuning).

3. Procedure:

Step 1: Data Preparation and Molecular Representation.

• Convert all natural product SMILES strings into molecular graph objects using RDKit. Each atom becomes a node (with features like atom type, hybridization), and each bond becomes an edge (with features like bond type) [11].
• Calculate additional molecular descriptors (e.g., molecular weight, logP, topological polar surface area) using RDKit to be used as complementary features.
• Split data into training/validation/test sets if model training is required.

Step 2: Graph Neural Network Model Setup.

• Load or construct the GNN architecture. The core layers perform graph convolution operations: transforming node features, applying batch normalization and ReLU activation, and using residual connections to maintain gradient flow [11].
• The model aggregates information from atomic neighbors and combines the graph-level representation with the calculated molecular descriptors in a fully connected layer to produce a final prediction (e.g., binding affinity score or active/inactive probability).

Step 3: Model Training (If Fine-Tuning).

• Train the model using labeled data (e.g., known actives and inactives from InertDB [8]).
• Use a binary cross-entropy loss function and an Adam optimizer.
• Monitor performance on the validation set to prevent overfitting.

Step 4: Virtual Screening Execution.

• Process the entire natural product library through the trained GNN model to generate prediction scores for each compound.
• Rank all compounds based on the predicted scores.

Step 5: Post-Screening Analysis & Prioritization.

• Apply chemical property filters (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five, solubility predictions) to the top-ranked hits to ensure drug-likeness.
• Cluster the top hits based on molecular fingerprints to select chemically diverse leads.
• Visually inspect the predicted binding poses or interaction patterns for the most promising candidates.

4. Validation:

• In silico: Perform molecular docking (using a complementary tool like AutoDock Vina or Glide) on the top AI-prioritized hits to assess predicted binding modes and complement the GNN predictions [13].
• Experimental: The final, shortlisted compounds (typically 10-50, instead of thousands) proceed to in vitro biological assay testing for experimental confirmation.

Protocol: Integrating Negative Data from InertDB for Robust Model Training

1. Objective: To improve the accuracy and reliability of a DL activity prediction model by training it on a balanced dataset containing both active compounds and confirmed inactive compounds.

2. Procedure [8]:

• Access the InertDB database (publicly available resource).
• Download the Curated Inactive Compounds (CIC) list, which contains molecules rigorously verified to show minimal activity across diverse bioassays.
• Select a subset of CICs that are chemically matched or diverse relative to your active compound set for the target of interest.
• Combine your known active compounds with the selected inactive compounds from InertDB to create a balanced training dataset.
• Train your classification model (e.g., a GNN or random forest) on this balanced dataset. The model will learn the discriminatory features between active and inactive states more effectively than from an active-only or artificially balanced dataset.
• Evaluate model performance using standard metrics (AUC-ROC, precision-recall) on a held-out test set.

Diagram 2: Architecture of a GNN Model for Molecular Property Prediction

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Kits for Supporting AI-Driven Workflows

Item	Function in Workflow	Relevance to AI/VS Research
Tn5 Transposase-Based DNA Library Prep Kits	Streamlines NGS library preparation via "tagmentation," combining fragmentation and adapter ligation [10].	Enables rapid, cost-effective whole-genome sequencing of natural product-producing organisms to identify biosynthetic gene clusters, generating data for genomic mining AI tools.
Automated NGS Library Preparation Workstations	Integrated systems for hands-off, reproducible library construction (e.g., Agilent Magnis) [14] [9].	Reduces manual labor and variability in generating high-quality sequencing data, ensuring the reliable genomic data needed to train and validate AI models.
Specialized Kits for Low-Input/Degraded Samples	Kits optimized for challenging samples (e.g., FFPE tissues, single cells) [10].	Allows sequencing of rare or difficult-to-culture organisms, expanding the diversity of genomic data available for AI-powered discovery pipelines.
Targeted Sequencing Panels (e.g., for CYP450s)	Focuses sequencing on specific gene families related to drug metabolism or biosynthesis [12].	Generates deep, targeted datasets ideal for training specialized AI models to predict enzyme substrate specificity or metabolic fate.

The unique challenges of natural product research—chemical complexity, biological data scarcity, and the exorbitant cost of traditional screening—are formidable but not insurmountable. Deep learning for virtual screening offers a coherent and powerful framework to navigate this complex landscape. By leveraging GNNs to understand molecular structure, generative models to overcome data limitations, and robust pipelines like VirtuDockDL for accurate prediction, researchers can invert the traditional discovery model. Instead of "screen first, analyze later," the paradigm becomes "predict intelligently, validate precisely." This approach dramatically concentrates financial and laboratory resources on the most promising leads, mitigating cost and accelerating timelines. The integration of curated negative data resources and automated experimental platforms further strengthens this AI-centric pipeline. As these technologies mature and become more accessible, they democratize the ability to explore nature's chemical treasury, promising a new era of efficient, data-driven natural product drug discovery.

Abstract The integration of advanced computational techniques into cheminformatics represents a fundamental paradigm shift in natural product-based drug discovery. This article delineates the hierarchical relationship between artificial intelligence (AI), machine learning (ML), and deep learning (DL) within this domain, framing them as a continuum of increasing specificity and capability. We posit that while AI provides the overarching goal of simulating intelligent behavior in drug screening, ML offers the statistical framework for learning from chemical data, and DL delivers the architectural power for modeling complex, high-dimensional structure-activity relationships. In the context of a thesis on deep learning for virtual screening (VS) of natural products, this work provides detailed application notes and protocols for implementing a DL-accelerated VS pipeline. We present quantitative benchmarks for state-of-the-art methods, a stepwise protocol for a scalable AI-VS platform integrating active learning, and a novel method for validating model interpretability using synthetically generated data. Supporting materials include standardized workflow diagrams, a reagent toolkit, and performance tables, equipping researchers with the practical frameworks necessary to leverage this technological shift for uncovering bioactive natural compounds.

1. Introduction: The Hierarchical Shift in Cheminformatics The discovery of lead compounds from natural products presents unique challenges, including structural complexity, scaffold diversity, and sparse activity data [15]. Traditional computational methods often struggle with these dimensions. The emergence of AI, ML, and DL offers a transformative, hierarchical approach [16]. In the cheminformatics context, Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the broadest paradigm, encompassing any computational system that performs tasks typically requiring human intelligence, such as predicting bioactivity or planning a synthetic route for a natural product derivative [15] [16]. Machine Learning (ML) is a subset of AI focused on developing algorithms that can learn patterns and make predictions from data without explicit, rule-based programming. In VS, ML models use features (e.g., molecular fingerprints, physicochemical descriptors) to predict binding affinity [17]. Deep Learning (DL), a further subset of ML, utilizes artificial neural networks with multiple layers (deep architectures) to automatically learn hierarchical representations from raw or minimally processed data, such as 3D molecular structures or graph representations [18] [17]. This paradigm shift enables the direct modeling of intricate interactions between a natural product and its protein target, moving beyond handcrafted features to data-driven discovery.

2. Hierarchical Definitions in the Virtual Screening Context

Table 1: Definition and Application of AI, ML, and DL in Cheminformatics.

Term	Core Definition in Context	Primary Role in Virtual Screening	Typical Application in Natural Product Research
Artificial Intelligence (AI)	The overarching science of creating systems capable of performing complex, intelligent tasks in drug discovery.	Orchestrating the entire VS pipeline, from target analysis to hit prioritization, often integrating multiple sub-systems.	Designing an end-to-end platform that integrates genomic data for biosynthetic gene cluster identification with subsequent VS of predicted metabolites [15].
Machine Learning (ML)	A suite of algorithms that identify statistical patterns in data to make predictions or decisions, based on feature input.	Classifying compounds as active/inactive or regressing binding affinity scores using curated molecular feature sets.	Building a random forest model to predict the antibacterial activity of flavonoid analogs based on topological fingerprints [17].
Deep Learning (DL)	A class of ML algorithms using multi-layered neural networks to learn high-level abstractions and representations directly from complex data.	Processing raw 3D structural data (e.g., protein-ligand complexes) to predict binding poses and affinities with high spatial awareness.	Using an equivariant graph neural network (e.g., PointVS) to screen a database of 3D-conformer natural products against a flexible binding pocket [18] [17].

3. Application Notes & Protocols for Deep Learning-Augmented VS This section provides actionable methodologies for implementing a DL-accelerated VS workflow, a core component of the broader thesis on natural product discovery.

3.1. Application Note: Performance Benchmarks for Physics-Informed DL VS A critical application is enhancing physics-based docking with DL for speed and accuracy. The RosettaVS AI-accelerated platform exemplifies this, combining a physics-based force field (RosettaGenFF-VS) with an active learning (AL) framework [18]. Its performance on standard benchmarks and real-world targets underscores the paradigm's value.

Table 2: Performance Metrics of the RosettaVS AI-Accelerated Platform. [18]

Benchmark / Target	Key Metric	RosettaVS Performance	Comparative Context
CASF-2016 (Docking Power)	Success in identifying near-native poses	Top-performing method	Outperformed other physics-based scoring functions.
CASF-2016 (Screening Power)	Enrichment Factor at 1% (EF1%)	EF1% = 16.72	Significantly higher than 2nd best method (EF1% = 11.9).
DUD Dataset	AUC & ROC Enrichment	State-of-the-art	Superior virtual screening accuracy across 40 targets.
Real-World Target: KLHDC2	Experimental Hit Rate	7 hits (14% hit rate)	From a focused library; single-digit µM affinity.
Real-World Target: NaV1.7	Experimental Hit Rate	4 hits (44% hit rate)	From initial screen; single-digit µM affinity.
Computational Speed	Screen Time for Billion-Compound Library	< 7 days	Using 3000 CPUs + 1 GPU per target.

3.2. Protocol 1: Implementing an Active Learning-Enhanced VS Workflow This protocol details the steps for screening ultra-large libraries using the OpenVS platform architecture [18].

Objective: To efficiently identify hit compounds from a multi-billion compound library (e.g., ZINC20) against a defined protein target with a known binding site. Materials: Prepared target protein structure (PDB format), prepared chemical library (e.g., in SDF format), high-performance computing (HPC) cluster with CPU nodes and GPU nodes, OpenVS software suite. Procedure:

• Target and Library Preparation:
  • Prepare the target protein structure (e.g., remove water, add hydrogens, optimize side chains).
  • Pre-process the chemical library: standardize formats, generate credible 3D conformers, and filter using basic physicochemical rules.
• Initial Seed Docking:
  • Randomly select a small subset (e.g., 0.1%) of the library.
  • Dock this subset using the VSX (Virtual Screening Express) mode of RosettaVS, which uses a rigid receptor and a simplified scoring function for speed [18].
• Active Learning Loop:
  • Train DL Model: Use the docking scores and compound features from the seed set to train a target-specific surrogate neural network model.
  • Predict & Prioritize: Use the trained DL model to predict the docking scores for the entire remaining unscreened library.
  • Select Batch: Choose the next batch of compounds (e.g., top 0.1% predicted by the DL model, plus a random exploration fraction).
  • High-Precision Docking: Dock the selected batch using the VSH (Virtual Screening High-precision) mode, which includes full receptor side-chain flexibility [18].
  • Update Training Set: Add the new VSH results to the training data.
  • Iterate: Repeat steps a-d until a predefined stopping criterion is met (e.g., number of compounds screened, convergence of top-scoring compounds).
• Hit Identification & Validation:
  • Cluster the top-ranked compounds from the final VSH results and select representatives for in vitro testing.
  • Validate predictions, as exemplified by the high-resolution X-ray crystallographic structure that confirmed the KLHDC2 ligand pose predicted by RosettaVS [18].

3.3. Protocol 2: Synthetic Data Generation for Validating Model Interpretability A major challenge in DL-based VS is ensuring models learn genuine biophysical interactions rather than dataset biases [17]. This protocol, adapted from synthetic benchmark studies, tests a model's ability to identify critical functional groups.

Objective: To generate a synthetic dataset with known ground-truth "binding" rules to evaluate if a DL VS model correctly attributes importance to key ligand atoms [17]. Materials: A set of diverse ligand molecules (e.g., from natural product libraries), Python environment with rdkit and numpy. Procedure:

• Define a Synthetic Protein Pocket:
  • For each ligand in its 3D conformation, define a bounding box extended 5 Å beyond its atomic coordinates.
  • Within this box, generate a random point cloud of "synthetic residues." Each residue has 3D coordinates and a randomly assigned pharmacophore type (e.g., hydrogen bond donor, acceptor, aromatic).
  • Filter points to be at least 2 Å from any ligand atom and 3 Å from each other.
• Apply a Deterministic Binding Rule:
  • Define a simple rule for "activity." For example: a ligand is labeled "active" if it contains at least one hydrogen bond donor atom within 2.5 Å of a synthetic acceptor residue AND one hydrophobic atom within 3.0 Å of a synthetic hydrophobic residue.
  • Apply this rule to each ligand/synthetic-protein pair to generate a clear binary label (1/0).
• Model Training & Attribution Analysis:
  • Train a DL-based VS model (e.g., a graph neural network) on this synthetic dataset.
  • Use an attribution method (e.g., Integrated Gradients) on the trained model to calculate the importance of each atom in the ligand for the prediction.
  • Validation: Compare the model-attributed importance scores against the ground-truth atoms defined by the binding rule. A model that has learned the correct spatial interaction will assign high importance to the key donor and hydrophobic atoms involved in the rule.
• Introduce Bias and Re-test: Degrade the dataset by adding a strong correlation between an irrelevant molecular feature (e.g., presence of a specific substructure) and the active label. Retraining a model on this biased data will show high predictive accuracy but poor attribution to the true binding rule, highlighting the risk of shortcut learning [17].

4. Visualizing the Paradigm Shift: Workflows and Relationships

Hierarchical Relationship from AI to DL Applications

Active Learning VS Workflow for Billion-Compound Libraries [18]

5. The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Resources

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for DL-VS.

Item Name	Type	Primary Function in Protocol	Reference/Resource
RosettaVS Software Suite	Software (Physics+AI)	Provides the core VSX (fast) and VSH (accurate) docking protocols, integrated with the RosettaGenFF-VS force field.	[18]
OpenVS Platform	Software Framework	An open-source, scalable platform implementing the active learning loop to coordinate docking and DL model training.	[18]
Synthetic Data Generation Framework (synthVS)	Software/Code	Python-based protocol for creating synthetic protein-ligand complexes with defined binding rules to test model interpretability.	[17]
Equivariant Graph Neural Network (e.g., PointVS)	DL Algorithm	A deep learning model architecture capable of learning from 3D molecular structures for direct affinity prediction or surrogate modeling.	[17]
Ultra-Large Chemical Library (e.g., ZINC, Enamine REAL)	Data	Provides the source pool of billions of purchasable compounds for virtual screening campaigns.	[18]
High-Performance Computing (HPC) Cluster	Hardware	Essential for performing billions of docking calculations and training large DL models within a practical timeframe (days).	[18]

6. Conclusion The delineation of AI, ML, and DL within cheminformatics is more than semantic; it maps a strategic pathway for advancing natural product research. This paradigm shift, characterized by DL's ability to directly process complex chemical data, enables the development of highly accurate and astonishingly fast virtual screening platforms, as evidenced by hit rates exceeding 40% in sub-week screens [18]. However, the power of these "black box" models necessitates rigorous validation of their interpretability, using innovative protocols like synthetic data generation to ensure they learn true chemistry rather than artifacts [17]. For the thesis on deep learning in natural product screening, this framework clarifies that the core investigative power lies in DL's architectural depth. The provided protocols offer a concrete foundation for employing AI-accelerated platforms and for critically evaluating the learned models, ultimately guiding the field toward more rational, efficient, and insightful discovery of bioactive natural compounds.

The integration of deep learning (DL) into natural product (NP) research marks a paradigm shift from traditional, labor-intensive discovery to a data-driven, predictive science. Natural products, with their unparalleled chemical diversity and proven therapeutic history, are potent sources for novel drug leads. However, their development is hampered by challenges such as structural complexity, low abundance in source material, and multifaceted pharmacology [5] [19]. Deep learning directly addresses these bottlenecks by enabling the virtual screening of ultra-large chemical libraries, predicting bioactive compounds from complex mixtures, and inferring mechanisms of action, thereby accelerating hit identification and derisking the early development pathway [5] [6].

This application note frames these advancements within a broader thesis on deep learning for virtual screening in NP research. It provides detailed methodologies, validated protocols, and a curated toolkit to empower researchers to implement these transformative approaches, moving from AI-driven predictions to experimentally validated, de-risked leads.

Quantitative Performance & Impact Analysis

The application of DL models in NP discovery is validated by significant improvements in key screening metrics compared to traditional methods. The following tables summarize the quantitative impact on virtual screening efficiency and model performance.

Table 1: Performance Metrics of AI/ML Models in Natural Product Virtual Screening

Model Type	Primary Application in NP Research	Key Performance Advantage	Reported Impact/Example
Graph Neural Networks (GNNs)	Molecular property prediction, activity classification	Captures complex structure-activity relationships	Enables direct learning from molecular graph representations of complex NPs [5].
Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs)	Image-based spectral analysis (NMR, MS), structure elucidation	High accuracy in pattern recognition from spectral data	Used in tools like DP4-AI for automated NMR analysis and structure determination [5].
Large Language Models (LLMs)	Standardizing herbal prescription data, literature mining	Processes unstructured text from ethnopharmacology	Extracts chemical and pharmacological data from historical texts and patents [5] [19].
Imbalanced Dataset Classifiers	Virtual screening of ultra-large libraries	Optimizes for Positive Predictive Value (PPV)	Achieves ≥30% higher hit rates in top candidate lists compared to models trained on balanced datasets [20].

Table 2: Impact of Deep Learning on Key Drug Discovery Risk and Efficiency Parameters

Parameter	Traditional NP Discovery	DL-Augmented NP Discovery	Risk Reduction/Efficiency Gain
Hit Identification Rate	Low (fraction of a percent in HTS)	Significantly Enhanced	Focused experimental testing on top AI-ranked candidates improves success rate [20] [21].
Early Attrition Due to ADMET	Late-stage experimental failure	Early in silico prediction	DL models predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties upfront [19].
Mechanistic De-risking	Post-hoc, target-centric assays	Integrated network pharmacology	Models construct herb–ingredient–target–pathway graphs to propose and validate polypharmacology in silico [5].
Chemical Space Explored	Limited by physical library size (~10^5-6 compounds)	Ultra-large virtual libraries (~10^9-12 compounds)	Access to vastly larger, more diverse chemical space, including make-on-demand compounds [21].

Detailed Experimental Protocols & Workflows

Protocol: Building a High-PPV Virtual Screening Model for Natural Product Libraries

Objective: To construct a binary classification DL model optimized for high Positive Predictive Value (PPV) to identify novel bioactive NPs from an ultra-large virtual library.

Rationale: For hit identification, where only a small subset of top-ranked compounds (e.g., 128 for a screening plate) can be tested, a high PPV ensures maximal true actives in that subset. Recent evidence shows that models trained on inherently imbalanced datasets (typical of bioactivity data) outperform balanced models for this task [20].

Materials: See "The Scientist's Toolkit" (Section 5).

Procedure:

• Data Curation & Imbalanced Training Set Preparation:

  • Source bioactivity data from ChEMBL or other repositories for your target of interest [22].
  • Do not balance the dataset. Retain the natural imbalance (typically a high ratio of inactive to active compounds). Define "active" using a relevant threshold (e.g., IC50 < 10 µM) [20].
  • Represent molecules as feature vectors. For NPs, use extended connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) or learned representations from a pre-trained GNN to capture complex ring systems and stereochemistry.

• Model Training & PPV-Centric Validation:

  • Implement a deep neural network (DNN) or GNN classifier. Use a weighted loss function (e.g., weighted binary cross-entropy) to slightly counterbalance class imbalance without resampling.
  • Primary Validation Metric: Optimize and select models based on PPV calculated for the top N predictions, where N equals your practical testing capacity (e.g., 128, 256). This simulates the real-world virtual screening output [20].
  • Secondary Metrics: Monitor area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and recall to ensure model robustness.

• Virtual Screening & Hit List Generation:

  • Prepare a ultra-large NP-inspired virtual library (e.g., from ZINC or REAL Space) [21].
  • Use the trained model to score all library compounds.
  • Rank compounds by predicted probability of activity and select the top N candidates with the highest scores for the experimental assay.

• Experimental Validation & Model Refinement:

  • Test the top N candidates in a primary in vitro assay.
  • Use the experimental results (confirmed actives/inactives) as an external test set to calculate the realized PPV.
  • Feed results back to augment the training data for model refinement in an iterative cycle.

Protocol: Integrated Multi-Omics Validation of AI-Predicted Natural Product Hits

Objective: To experimentally validate AI-predicted NP hits and elucidate their mechanism of action using a multi-omics gating strategy, thereby de-risking downstream development.

Rationale: AI predictions require rigorous validation. An integrated workflow using transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics can confirm bioactivity, assess target engagement, and identify potential off-target effects early [5].

Materials: Cell line relevant to disease target, AI-predicted NP compounds, vehicle control, omics analysis platforms (RNA-Seq, LC-MS/MS for proteomics and metabolomics).

Procedure:

• Transcriptomic Signature Reversal Assay:

  • Treat disease-model cells with the AI-predicted NP hit at its IC50 concentration.
  • Extract RNA and perform RNA-Sequencing. Compare the gene expression profile to both vehicle-treated diseased cells and healthy control cells.
  • Success Criterion: The NP treatment significantly reverses the disease-associated gene expression signature toward the healthy state [5].

• Proteome-Scale Target Engagement Check:

  • Use a chemical proteomics approach (e.g., affinity-based protein profiling) with a functionalized derivative of the NP hit.
  • Enrich and identify proteins that bind directly to the compound from a native cell lysate via mass spectrometry.
  • Success Criterion: The primary target(s) are identified and include the intended protein. Minimal off-target binding to proteins associated with toxicity is observed [5] [22].

• Mechanistic Confirmation via Untargeted Metabolomics:

  • Analyze metabolic profiles of cells treated with the NP hit vs. control using LC-MS.
  • Integrate data with feature-based molecular networking to identify altered metabolic pathways.
  • Success Criterion: Observed metabolic changes align with the expected mechanism of action of the compound and the engaged target identified in Step 2 [5].

Diagram: AI-Driven Natural Product Discovery and Validation Workflow

Integration with Structure-Based Methods & Data Requirements

A robust DL workflow for NPs integrates with and enhances structure-based methods. While physics-based docking (e.g., molecular docking) is powerful, it can be computationally prohibitive for ultra-large libraries. A synergistic protocol is recommended:

• Initial Ultra-Fast DL Filter: Apply a high-PPV DL model to screen a multi-billion compound library, reducing it to a manageable subset (e.g., 100,000 compounds) with high probability of activity [21].
• Structure-Based Refinement: Subject the DL-filtered subset to more computationally intensive, high-accuracy physics-based docking or free-energy perturbation calculations using the target protein structure (from PDB or AlphaFold2) [22] [21].
• Final Prioritization: Integrate DL-based ADMET predictions (e.g., solubility, metabolic stability) with the refined activity scores to generate the final, synthetically accessible hit list for experimental testing [19].

Critical Data Considerations:

• Quality over Quantity: Use high-confidence bioactivity data (e.g., ChEMBL entries with high confidence scores) [22].
• Stratified Splits: For model validation, split data by structural clusters of proteins to test generalization to novel targets, not by random compound splits [22].
• NP-Specific Representations: Employ molecular representations that effectively capture the high stereochemical complexity and scaffold diversity of natural products.

Diagram: Synergy of AI & Physics-Based Methods in Screening

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Tools & Databases for DL-Driven NP Research

Tool/Resource Category	Specific Name / Example	Function in Workflow	Key Considerations for NPs
Public Bioactivity Databases	ChEMBL [22], PubChem BioAssay [20]	Source of labeled data for model training.	Data is often imbalanced and may contain noise; apply confidence filters.
Ultra-Large Compound Libraries	ZINC20 [21], Enamine REAL Space [21]	Source of "make-on-demand" compounds for virtual screening.	Contains NP-inspired scaffolds; check for synthetic feasibility of complex NPs.
Cheminformatics & DL Libraries	RDKit, DeepChem, PyTorch/TensorFlow	For molecule featurization, model building, and training.	Ensure molecular representations (e.g., graphs) can handle NP complexity.
Structure Databases & Tools	PDB [22], AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [21]	Source of target structures for integrative SBVS.	For modeled structures (AlphaFold), assess local accuracy at the binding site.
Multi-Omics Data Portals	GEO (Transcriptomics), PRIDE (Proteomics), MetaboLights	Data for validation and network pharmacology models.	Crucial for constructing and validating herb–target–pathway networks [5].
Specialized NP Databases	LOTUS, NPASS, COCONUT	Curated sources of NP structures and activities.	Smaller but highly relevant datasets for fine-tuning models.

Inside the AI Toolbox: Architectures and Workflows for Screening Nature's Compounds

The discovery of bioactive natural products (NPs) is a cornerstone of drug development but is challenged by the immense structural diversity and complexity of NP space. Traditional computational methods, often adapted from synthetic molecule research, struggle to capture the unique biosynthetic and evolutionary patterns inherent to NPs [23]. The NaFM (Natural Products Foundation Model) framework addresses this by introducing a purpose-built pre-training strategy that learns generalizable molecular representations directly from large, unlabeled NP datasets [24]. This approach shifts the paradigm from training individual, task-specific models to leveraging a single, powerful foundation model that can be efficiently fine-tuned for diverse downstream applications in virtual screening and NP research [23].

NaFM's architecture is based on a Graph Neural Network (GNN) that processes molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges. Its core innovation lies in a dual pre-training strategy combining Masked Graph Learning and Scaffold-Informed Contrastive Learning [24].

• Enhanced Masked Graph Learning: Unlike standard approaches that mask only atom or bond features, NaFM's strategy also masks the connectivity within subgraphs. This forces the model to reconstruct missing topological relationships, requiring a deeper, more global understanding of molecular structure that is critical for complex NPs [24].
• Scaffold-Informed Contrastive Learning: This component teaches the model to recognize fundamental NP similarities. It uses molecular scaffolds—core structural frameworks often conserved across biosynthetic pathways—as a basis for comparison. The learning objective incorporates scaffold similarity as a soft weight, allowing the model to distinguish between strong and weak negative examples and effectively integrate information from variable side-chain modifications [24].

This tailored pre-training enables NaFM to internalize the fundamental relationships between NP source organisms, their conserved biosynthetic scaffolds, and resulting bioactivities. It achieves state-of-the-art performance across key tasks, including taxonomic classification, bioactivity prediction, and biosynthetic gene cluster association, providing a powerful base model for accelerating virtual screening pipelines [23] [24].

Table 1: NaFM Model Specifications and Pre-training Data

Component	Specification	Description
Base Architecture	Graph Neural Network (GNN)	Processes molecular graphs of atoms (nodes) and bonds (edges).
Core Pre-training Strategies	1. Enhanced Masked Graph Learning2. Scaffold-Informed Contrastive Learning	Dual strategy for learning structural and evolutionary relationships [24].
Primary Pre-training Data Source	COCONUT database	Source of ~400,000 NP structures for self-supervised pre-training [25].
Key Downstream Evaluation Tasks	Taxonomy Classification, Bioactivity Prediction, BGC Mining, Virtual Screening	Tasks used to validate the model's generalizability and utility [24].

Application Notes and Experimental Protocols

NaFM’s pre-trained representations serve as a versatile starting point for various downstream tasks critical to NP drug discovery. The following protocols detail the fine-tuning and application process for three key use cases.

Protocol 1: Fine-tuning NaFM for NP Taxonomy Classification

Objective: To predict the biological origin (e.g., plant genus, fungal family) of a natural product based on its molecular structure. Background: Taxonomic classification aids in dereplication, sourcing, and understanding biosynthetic origins [24].

• Data Preparation:

  • Obtain labeled data linking NP structures (as SMILES) to taxonomic classes. A standard benchmark is the refreshed NPClassifier dataset [25].
  • Split data into training, validation, and test sets (e.g., 80/10/10). Ensure no data leakage between splits.
  • Use the NaFMTokenizer (or equivalent) to convert SMILES strings into graph representations compatible with the pre-trained NaFM GNN.

• Model Setup:

  • Load the pre-trained NaFM weights.
  • Attach a classification head (typically a multi-layer perceptron) on top of the NaFM graph encoder. The input to this head is the global graph representation vector produced by NaFM for each molecule.
  • Initialize the classification head with random weights while the NaFM encoder weights start from the pre-trained state.

• Fine-tuning:

  • Use a cross-entropy loss function for multi-class classification.
  • Employ a low initial learning rate (e.g., 1e-5 to 1e-4) and a scheduler (e.g., ReduceLROnPlateau) to avoid catastrophic forgetting of pre-trained knowledge.
  • Monitor accuracy on the validation set. Early stopping is recommended to prevent overfitting.
  • Key Consideration: Compared to training from scratch or using generic molecular models, fine-tuning NaFM should converge faster and achieve higher accuracy, especially on out-of-distribution or rare taxonomic classes, due to its NP-specific prior knowledge [24].

Protocol 2: Integrating NaFM into a Virtual Screening Pipeline

Objective: To rank a library of natural products by predicted activity against a specific protein target. Background: Virtual screening prioritizes compounds for experimental testing, dramatically reducing cost and time [11] [4].

• Library and Target Preparation:

  • Prepare the target protein structure (e.g., from PDB) by removing water, adding hydrogens, and assigning charges (e.g., using UCSF Chimera, AutoDock Tools).
  • Prepare the NP screening library as SMILES. Clean and standardize structures (e.g., using RDKit).

• Generating NP Representations:

  • Pass the entire library of NP SMILES through the pre-trained NaFM encoder without fine-tuning.
  • Extract the global graph representation (a fixed-size numerical vector) for each compound. These representations encode rich structural and implicit bioactivity information.

• Activity Prediction & Screening:

  • Option A (Similarity-based): If known active compounds are available, compute the similarity (e.g., cosine similarity) between their NaFM embeddings and those of the library compounds. Rank the library by similarity score.
  • Option B (Predictive Model): If a dataset of compounds with measured activity (e.g., pIC50) against the target is available, train a simple regressor (e.g., Random Forest, Gradient Boosting) or a shallow neural network using the NaFM embeddings as input features. Use this model to score the NP library.
  • Select the top-ranked compounds (e.g., top 100-500) for subsequent molecular docking analysis (e.g., with AutoDock Vina or Glide) to assess binding poses and affinity [11].

Protocol 3: Evolutionary Mining of Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs)

Objective: To associate NP structures with their putative biosynthetic gene clusters or enzyme families. Background: Linking molecules to genes enables genome mining and metabolic engineering [24].

• Data Curation:

  • Assemble a dataset of known NP-structure-to-BGC pairs. Public resources like MIBiG (Minimum Information about a Biosynthetic Gene Cluster) are essential starting points [25].
  • Represent each BGC by features such as the presence/absence of Pfam enzyme domains.

• Model Training for Association:

  • Use the NaFM embeddings of NP structures as the input feature vector (X).
  • Use the BGC feature vector (e.g., a binary vector of Pfam domains) as the target (Y).
  • Train a multi-label prediction model (e.g., a neural network with sigmoid output activation) to predict BGC features from the NP structure embedding.
  • This model learns the latent relationship between chemical structure and biosynthetic machinery [24].

• Prospective Mining:

  • For a novel NP of interest, generate its embedding using NaFM.
  • Pass the embedding through the trained association model to predict the most likely Pfam domains or BGC types involved in its biosynthesis.
  • These predictions can guide the search for the corresponding BGC in a sequenced genome or metagenome.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of NaFM on Core Downstream Tasks

Downstream Task	Dataset	Evaluation Metric	NaFM Performance	Key Comparative Baseline
Taxonomy Classification	Refreshed NPClassifier [25]	Macro F1-Score	Outperforms NPClassifier (supervised tool) and generic molecular MLMs [24].	NPClassifier [24]
Bioactivity Prediction	NPASS database [25]	RMSE (Regression)	Lower error in predicting pChEMBL values for targets like AChE, 5-HT2A compared to baseline GNNs [24].	AttentiveFP [24]
BGC & Enzyme Family Prediction	MIBiG / Pfam [25]	Average Precision	Effectively associates structures with biosynthetic genes; captures evolutionary information [24].	Molecular Transformer [24]

Visualization of Workflows and Model Architecture

Diagram 1: NaFM Framework: From Pre-training to Application (98 chars)

Table 3: Key Databases and Software for NP Research with NaFM

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in NP Research	Relevance to NaFM Workflow
COCONUT	Database	A comprehensive open-source collection of natural product structures [25].	Primary source of unlabeled data for pre-training the foundation model [25].
NPASS	Database	Provides detailed natural product activity data against protein targets [25].	Source for labeled data to fine-tune and evaluate NaFM for bioactivity prediction and virtual screening [24] [25].
LOTUS	Database	Links NP structures to their biological source organisms [25].	Provides data for pre-training and evaluating taxonomy classification and evolutionary mining tasks [24] [25].
MIBiG	Database	A curated repository of known Biosynthetic Gene Clusters (BGCs) and their metabolites [25].	Essential for creating datasets to train and test NaFM's ability to link chemical structures to genetic origins [24] [25].
RDKit	Software	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit for working with molecular data [11].	Used for standardizing SMILES, generating molecular descriptors, and converting structures to graph format for model input.
PyTorch Geometric	Software	A library for deep learning on graphs, built on PyTorch [11].	Provides the core GNN layer implementations and data handling utilities for building and training models like NaFM.
AutoDock Vina	Software	A widely used program for molecular docking [11].	Used in the virtual screening protocol to perform binding pose prediction and affinity estimation on compounds prioritized by NaFM.

The discovery of new therapeutic agents from natural products (NPs) has historically been a cornerstone of pharmacology, particularly for complex diseases like cancer and infectious diseases [26]. NPs possess privileged chemical scaffolds, evolved over millennia to interact with biological systems, offering high structural diversity and potent bioactivity [27] [28]. However, NP-based drug discovery faces significant challenges, including labor-intensive isolation processes, structural complexity, and difficulties in achieving sustainable resupply [26] [27]. These hurdles have, in the past, led to a decline in industry interest in favor of high-throughput screening (HTS) of synthetic libraries.

The central thesis of modern computational pharmacology posits that deep learning (DL) can revitalize NP research by overcoming these historical bottlenecks. DL provides the tools to virtually screen vast, chemically diverse NP libraries with unprecedented speed and accuracy, predicting bioactive compounds before costly wet-lab experiments begin [29] [30]. This article explores the embodiment of this thesis in next-generation, multi-stage virtual screening (VS) pipelines. Platforms like HelixVS and VirtuDockDL represent a paradigm shift, moving beyond single-method docking to integrated workflows that synergistically combine classical physics-based methods with data-driven DL models [31] [11]. By dramatically improving enrichment factors (EF) and screening throughput, these pipelines are making the systematic exploration of massive NP libraries for novel drug leads a practical and cost-effective reality [31] [32].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarks: HelixVS and VirtuDockDL

The superiority of multi-stage DL pipelines is quantitatively demonstrated through rigorous benchmarking against established tools. The following tables summarize key performance metrics for HelixVS and VirtuDockDL.

Table 1: Virtual Screening Performance on the DUD-E Benchmark Dataset [31] [32]

Method	EF at 0.1% (EF₀.₁%)	EF at 1% (EF₁%)	Screening Speed (Molecules/Day/Core)
AutoDock Vina	17.065	10.022	~300
Glide SP	25.968 (approx.)	Not specified	Lower than Vina
HelixVS	44.205	26.968	~4,000
Performance Gain (HelixVS vs. Vina)	2.6x fold increase	~2.7x fold increase	>13x faster

Table 2: Validation Metrics for VirtuDockDL on Specific Target Datasets [11]

Target / Dataset	Metric	VirtuDockDL Performance	Comparative Tool Performance
HER2 (Cancer)	Accuracy	99%	DeepChem (89%), AutoDock Vina (82%)
	F1-Score	0.992	Not specified for others
	AUC	0.99	Not specified for others
VP35 (Marburg Virus)	Experimental Hit Identification	Successfully identified non-covalent inhibitors	Outperformed RosettaVS, MzDOCK, PyRMD

Table 3: Experimental Hit Rates from HelixVS-Driven Drug Discovery Campaigns [31] [32]

Therapeutic Target	Library Size Screened	Key Experimental Outcome	Wet-Lab Hit Rate
CDK4/6 (Cancer)	7.8 million	6 of top 100 compounds showed >20% inhibition in BiFC assay.	6% from selected subset
TLR4/MD-2 (Inflammation)	200,000	2 compounds exhibited nanomolar (nM) activity in SEAP assay.	>0.5% actives from screened library
cGAS (Immunology)	30,000	17 active compounds identified, with potencies <10 µM (one in nM range).	~0.06% actives from screened library
Aggregate across pipelines	>18 million	Over 10% of molecules selected for testing demonstrated µM to nM activity.	>10% from prioritized hits

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol for HelixVS Multi-Stage Screening

Application Note: This protocol is designed for structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) against a defined protein target, utilizing the HelixVS platform to efficiently prioritize high-affinity ligands from ultra-large libraries (millions to billions of compounds) [31] [32].

Stage 1: High-Throughput Pose Generation with Classical Docking

• Input Preparation: Prepare the target protein structure (e.g., from PDB) by adding hydrogen atoms, assigning protonation states, and defining the binding pocket coordinates. Prepare the ligand library in a suitable format (e.g., SDF, SMILES). HelixVS automates protein pre-processing and supports both built-in and custom compound libraries [31].
• Docking Execution: Using the integrated AutoDock QuickVina 2 engine, perform molecular docking for each ligand in the library into the defined binding site [31].
• Pose Retention: Retain multiple (e.g., 5-10) top-scoring binding conformations and their empirical scores (estimated ΔG) for each ligand. Critical Step: Preserving conformational diversity at this stage is essential for downstream DL scoring [31].

Stage 2: Deep Learning-Based Affinity Re-scoring

• Model Input: Feed the ensemble of docking poses from Stage 1 into the DL-based affinity scoring model. This model is built upon the RTMscore architecture, augmented with extensive co-crystal structure data from the PDB [31] [32].
• Affinity Prediction: The DL model evaluates each pose, generating a more accurate predicted binding affinity score that captures complex interaction patterns often missed by classical scoring functions.
• Re-ranking: Re-rank all ligands based on their best DL score, effectively filtering out false positives favored by the empirical docking score.

Stage 3: Binding Mode Filtering & Clustering (Optional)

• Interaction Filtering: Apply rule-based or pharmacophore filters to select poses forming specific, desired interactions (e.g., a hydrogen bond with a key catalytic residue). This step enforces a user-defined binding mode hypothesis [31] [32].
• Diversity Selection: Cluster the top-ranked compounds based on molecular similarity (e.g., Tanimoto coefficient on fingerprints). Select a representative subset of compounds from each cluster to ensure chemical diversity in the final output for experimental testing [31].

Validation: Benchmark performance using the DUD-E dataset. Platform validation is confirmed by wet-lab testing, consistently yielding >10% active compounds from prioritized hits [31] [32].

Protocol for VirtuDockDL’s GNN-Driven Screening

Application Note: This protocol outlines the use of VirtuDockDL for ligand-based and structure-based screening, leveraging a Graph Neural Network (GNN) to predict bioactive compounds from a library, followed by molecular docking [11].

Phase 1: Data Preparation and GNN Model Training

• Dataset Curation: Assemble a labeled dataset of active ("hit") and inactive ("non-hit") compounds for the biological target of interest. For example, for β-microtubule inhibitors, a hit dataset of 637 known inhibitors and a non-hit dataset of 2932 diverse molecules were used [30].
• Molecular Featurization: Convert SMILES strings of all compounds into molecular graphs using RDKit. Nodes represent atoms (featurized with atomic number, degree, etc.), and edges represent bonds [11].
• Model Training: Train a Directed Message Passing Neural Network (DMPNN) or a similar GNN architecture using PyTorch Geometric. The model learns to aggregate information from a compound's graph structure to predict its activity class [11] [30].
• Performance Evaluation: Validate the trained model on a held-out test set. A well-trained model for β-microtubule screening achieved an AUC of 0.9962 and accuracy of 96% [30].

Phase 2: Virtual Screening and Docking

• Library Screening: Process the target NP or compound library through the trained GNN model to obtain a prediction score (hit probability) for each molecule.
• Compound Prioritization: Rank all library compounds by their predicted score. Apply filters such as Lipinski's Rule of Five and a similarity threshold to known actives (e.g., Tanimoto <0.7) to prioritize novel, drug-like leads [30].
• Structure-Based Validation: Perform molecular docking (e.g., using AutoDock Vina) for the top-ranked virtual hits against the 3D structure of the target protein to assess binding modes and approximate affinity.
• Experimental Triaging: Select the final candidates for in vitro validation based on a consensus of high GNN score, favorable docking pose, and desirable physicochemical properties.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 4: Key Software, Libraries, and Resources for Implementing DL-VS Pipelines

Tool/Resource Name	Type/Category	Function in DL-VS Pipeline	Primary Source/Reference
HelixVS Platform	Integrated Web Platform	End-to-end multi-stage VS service combining QuickVina2 docking, DL re-scoring (RTMscore-based), and binding-mode filtering.	Public service: paddlehelix.baidu.com [31]
VirtuDockDL	Python-based Pipeline	Automated DL screening via GNN models followed by docking. Integrates RDKit, PyTorch Geometric.	GitHub repository [11]
AutoDock QuickVina 2	Docking Software	Fast, classical molecular docking engine used for initial pose generation in Stage 1 of HelixVS.	Alhossary et al., 2015 [31]
RTMscore	Deep Learning Model	Architecture foundation for the affinity prediction model in HelixVS; trained on PDB co-crystal data.	Shen et al., 2022 [31]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Open-source toolkit for molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, and SMILES-to-graph conversion. Used in VirtuDockDL [11].	rdkit.org
PyTorch Geometric	Deep Learning Library	Library for building and training GNNs on irregular graph data (molecules). Core to VirtuDockDL's model [11].	pytorch-geometric.readthedocs.io
DUD-E Dataset	Benchmark Dataset	Directory of Useful Decoys: Enhanced; standard benchmark for evaluating VS method performance.	Mysinger et al., 2012 [31]
ZINC / NP Libraries	Compound Databases	Sources of commercially available and natural product compounds for screening (e.g., ZINC15, COCONUT, NPASS).	Sterling & Irwin, 2015; Various [31] [30]

Workflow Visualization: Architectural Diagrams of Multi-Stage Pipelines

HelixVS Multi-Stage Virtual Screening Pipeline

VirtuDockDL GNN-Based Screening and Docking Workflow

Applications in Natural Product Research: Case Studies

The integration of these advanced pipelines into NP research is already yielding promising results, validating the core thesis.

Case Study 1: Discovery of Novel β-Microtubule Inhibitors A dedicated DL screening pipeline was employed to discover new microtubule-stabilizing agents from NPs, inspired by the success of paclitaxel [30]. Researchers trained a DMPNN model on 637 known β-tubulin inhibitors and 2932 non-inactive molecules. This model was used to screen a library of 4247 natural products. The virtual hits were filtered for drug-likeness and novelty, leading to the experimental validation of Bruceine D and Phorbol 12-myristate 13-acetate (PMA) as new β-microtubule inhibitors. Both compounds demonstrated potent anti-proliferative activity (IC₅₀ ~10.7 µM) in MDA-MB-231 cells, induced cell cycle arrest, and promoted apoptosis [30]. This study exemplifies a successful ligand-based DL screen directly applied to an NP library.

Case Study 2: HelixVS for Challenging Protein-Protein Interaction (PPI) Targets NP-inspired scaffolds are often sought for "undruggable" PPI targets. HelixVS has been applied to several such challenging campaigns [31] [32]:

• Targeting cGAS: Screening 30,000 molecules against the ATP-binding pocket of cyclic GMP-AMP synthase (cGAS) identified 17 active compounds, with one exhibiting nanomolar potency in a cell-based luciferase assay.
• Targeting TLR4/MD-2: From 200,000 screened molecules, over 100 candidates were progressed, with two showing nanomolar inhibitory activity. These applications demonstrate that multi-stage pipelines like HelixVS can effectively screen for hits against complex binding sites, a task where NP diversity is particularly valuable.

The evolution of structure-based screening into multi-stage, DL-integrated pipelines represents a transformative advancement for drug discovery, with particular resonance for the field of natural products. Platforms like HelixVS and VirtuDockDL address the critical need for both high accuracy (2-3x improvement in enrichment) and high throughput (screening millions of compounds daily) that is essential for navigating the vast chemical space of NP libraries [31] [11] [32].

By framing this technological progress within the broader thesis of deep learning for NP research, it becomes clear that these tools are directly countering historical attrition points: they reduce reliance on slow, material-intensive bioactivity-guided fractionation and enable the in silico prioritization of the most promising NP leads. As these pipelines become more accessible and integrated with growing digitized NP databases [28], they pave the way for a sustainable and efficient renaissance in natural product-based drug discovery, accelerating the translation of nature's chemical ingenuity into novel therapeutics for global health challenges.

The integration of deep learning (DL) into virtual screening (VS) represents a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery, particularly for exploring the vast and structurally diverse chemical space of natural products (NPs). NPs are a prolific source of novel therapeutics, but their complex scaffolds pose significant challenges for conventional screening methods [4]. Within the broader thesis of employing DL for NP-based drug discovery, a critical challenge emerges: balancing the high predictive accuracy of state-of-the-art DL models with the computational efficiency required to screen ultra-large libraries [33] [34].

This application note focuses on Boltzina, a novel hybrid framework that directly addresses this efficiency-accuracy trade-off [35]. Boltzina strategically fuses rapid, classical molecular docking with the high-fidelity scoring power of a cutting-edge DL model, Boltz-2 [33]. By omitting Boltz-2's rate-limiting 3D structure prediction module and instead using poses generated by AutoDock Vina, Boltzina achieves a significant speedup while retaining superior screening performance over traditional docking [34]. This protocol details the implementation, optimization, and application of Boltzina-like hybrid workflows, positioning them as essential tools for accelerating the virtual screening of natural product libraries within a modern DL-driven research thesis.

Core Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Architectural Framework of the Boltzina Hybrid Pipeline

The Boltzina framework is built upon a strategic decomposition of the Boltz-2 architecture. Boltz-2 itself comprises three core modules: a Trunk Module for extracting latent protein-ligand interaction features, a Structure Module that performs a diffusion-based prediction of the 3D complex coordinates, and an Affinity Module that predicts binding likelihood and affinity [35] [34].

Boltzina's innovation lies in bypassing the computationally expensive Structure Module. The protocol substitutes this step with a pre-processing stage using AutoDock Vina for rigid docking pose generation [33]. These pre-generated poses are then fed directly into the Boltz-2 Affinity Module for scoring. This fusion creates a synergistic workflow where docking provides rapid conformational sampling, and the DL model delivers a sophisticated, data-driven affinity evaluation [36].

Hybrid Screening Workflow (Pose Generation + DL Scoring)

Protocol: Implementing a Two-Stage Screening Workflow for Natural Products

This protocol adapts the hybrid concept for a NP-focused screening campaign, as exemplified in studies targeting TNF-α for rheumatoid arthritis or SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [4] [37]. The workflow integrates an initial DL-based bioactivity prediction to filter the library before the structure-based hybrid screening.

Stage 1: Ligand-Based Deep Learning Pre-Screening

• Objective: Rapidly filter a large natural product database (e.g., Selleckchem NP Library) to a subset of compounds predicted to be active against the target.
• Procedure:
  • Data Curation: Obtain a curated dataset of known actives/inactives for the target (e.g., from ChEMBL). For the protein target TNF-α, a dataset of 953 compounds was used [4].
  • Descriptor Calculation: Generate molecular descriptors or fingerprints (e.g., 881-bit PubChem fingerprints) from canonical SMILES strings using tools like PaDEL-Descriptor [4] [37].
  • Model Training: Train a regression DL model (e.g., a multi-layer perceptron) to predict bioactivity (pIC50). Hyperparameter optimization (e.g., using RandomizedSearchCV) is critical. An optimized architecture may include 5 hidden layers with 300-700 neurons per layer and varied activation functions (tanh, ReLU, ELU) [4].
  • Virtual Screening: Deploy the trained model to score all compounds in the NP library. Select the top-ranked compounds (e.g., top 5-10%) for the next stage.

Stage 2: Structure-Based Hybrid Screening with Boltzina

• Objective: Accurately score and rank the pre-filtered NPs using the hybrid docking/DL framework.
• Procedure:
  • Target Preparation: Prepare the 3D protein structure (e.g., from PDB, homology model). Define the binding site grid center and size. For TNF-α, the centroid of a co-crystallized ligand can be used [4].
  • Docking Pose Generation: For each pre-filtered NP, generate multiple binding poses using AutoDock Vina. Standard parameters: grid size = 20 Å, exhaustiveness = 8 [35] [34].
  • Pose Selection & Processing: Convert the top N poses (e.g., best pose, or top 5) from PDB to MMCIF format. The "Top-5 Average" strategy, which averages the Boltzina score across five poses, has shown robustness [34].
  • DL Affinity Prediction: Process the MMCIF poses through the Boltzina pipeline (Boltz-2's Affinity Module). The framework outputs a binding likelihood and score.
  • Hit Prioritization: Rank compounds based on Boltzina scores. For highest accuracy, a two-stage refinement can be applied: use Boltzina (Cycle=1) for initial ranking of the entire pre-filtered set, then re-score the top 5-20% with the full, slower Boltz-2 model [34].

Table 1: Performance Benchmark of Virtual Screening Methods on MF-PCBA Dataset [35] [34]

Method	Mean Average Precision (AP)	Typical Speed (sec/ligand)	Key Characteristics
Boltz-2 (Full)	0.084	~16.5	Highest accuracy, integrates structure prediction
Boltzina	0.056	~2.3	Hybrid approach: Vina poses + Boltz-2 scoring
Boltzina (Cycle=1)	0.048	~1.4	Faster variant, reduced recycling iterations
GNINA (CNN)	Very Low	~0.9	Classical ML scoring function
AutoDock Vina	Very Low	~0.8	Conventional empirical scoring

Table 2: Metrics from a DL-Based Virtual Screening Campaign for Natural Products against TNF-α [4]

Stage	Description	Metric	Value
Predictive Model Training	5-layer DL model performance on ChEMBL data	Mean Absolute Error (MAE)	0.5
		Mean Squared Error (MSE)	0.6
		Mean Absolute Percentage Error (MAPE)	10%
Virtual Screening	Initial library size (Selleckchem database)	Number of Natural Compounds	2,563
	Post DL pre-screening	Top Compounds Selected	128 (top 5%)
Molecular Docking	Affinity cutoff for selection	Docking Score (kcal/mol)	< -8.7

Protocol: Optimization and Pose Selection Strategy

A critical technical aspect of hybrid frameworks is managing and selecting from multiple docking poses to feed into the DL scorer.

Pose Selection Strategy Decision Workflow

• Procedure:
  • Generate at least 5-10 poses per ligand during the AutoDock Vina run.
  • Based on the decision logic in the workflow above, choose a pose aggregation strategy:
    • For Speed: Use only the best-scoring pose from Vina.
    • For Robust Accuracy: Use the "Top-5 Average" of Boltzina scores. This mitigates pose prediction errors and is recommended for final screening [34].
    • For Identifying Peak Affinity: Use the single highest Boltzina score from among the top 5 poses.
  • Implement the chosen strategy in the post-docking preprocessing script that prepares inputs for the Boltzina model.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Software, Databases, and Tools for Hybrid Screening of Natural Products

Category	Tool/Reagent	Function in Workflow	Application Note
Docking & Pose Generation	AutoDock Vina [35] [37]	Rapid generation of protein-ligand binding poses.	The front-end pose generator for Boltzina. Grid definition is crucial.
Deep Learning Core	Boltzina Framework [33] [36]	High-accuracy affinity scoring of docking poses.	Uses the Affinity Module of Boltz-2. Available on GitHub.
	PyTorch Geometric / RDKit [11]	Constructing and training graph neural networks (GNNs) for ligand-based models.	Used in pipelines like VirtuDockDL for initial compound activity prediction.
Data Curation & Preprocessing	ChEMBL Database [4] [37]	Source of bioactivity data for training target-specific DL models.	Provides IC50/pIC50 values for model regression tasks.
	Selleckchem Natural Product Library [4] [37]	Curated collection of purchasable natural compounds for virtual screening.	A common source library for NP drug discovery campaigns.
	PaDEL-Descriptor [4]	Calculates molecular fingerprints and descriptors from SMILES.	Converts chemical structures into numerical features for DL models.
Analysis & Validation	PyMOL / Discovery Studio [37]	Visualization of protein-ligand complexes and interaction analysis.	Critical for visually inspecting top-ranked hits from screening.
	GROMACS / AMBER [4]	Molecular dynamics (MD) simulation packages for stability validation.	Used to simulate the stability of final hit complexes (e.g., for 100-200 ns).

Deep learning (DL) is transforming the virtual screening (VS) of natural products (NPs) by enabling the efficient mining of vast chemical and biological spaces. The table below summarizes key performance metrics, challenges, and AI approaches across three major therapeutic areas [38] [5].

Therapeutic Area	Exemplar AI-Predicted/Discovered NP	Key AI Model/Platform Used	Reported Performance Metric	Primary Challenge Addressed
Oncology	CNP0047068 (mIDH1 inhibitor) [39]	ML-based QSAR, RosettaVS [39] [18]	Stable ligand-protein complex (RMSD analysis); >10% hit rate in some VS campaigns [39] [18]	Identifying selective inhibitors for gain-of-function mutations (e.g., IDH1[R132H])
Antimicrobial	Colistin (immune-assisted activity) [40]	AI-accelerated VS platforms (e.g., for TEM-1 β-lactamase) [5] [11]	Platform validation: >99% accuracy, AUC 0.99 on HER2; EF¹ 44.2 at 0.1% [11] [31]	Overcoming standard lab resistance (mcr gene) via host immune synergy [40]
Anti-inflammatory	Multi-target herbal formulations [5]	Network pharmacology, Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) [5] [11]	Mapping of herb-ingredient-target-pathway graphs for synergistic effects [5]	Deconvoluting complex mixture pharmacology and multi-target mechanisms

Table 1: Comparative landscape of AI-driven natural product discovery in key therapeutic areas. ¹EF: Enrichment Factor.

Application Note 1: Oncology – Discovery of Mutant IDH1 Inhibitors

Objective: Identify selective natural product inhibitors against the oncogenic mutant isocitrate dehydrogenase 1 (IDH1[R132H]) for gliomas and AML [39]. Background: The mutant enzyme produces the oncometabolite 2-HG, driving tumorigenesis. Selective inhibition spares wild-type IDH1 function, representing a precision oncology target [39].

Protocol: AI-Driven Virtual Screening Workflow

Step 1 – Library Preparation & Target Processing

• Input: Prepare a library of natural product structures (e.g., from Coconut database) in SMILES or SDF format. Curate and clean structures (remove salts, standardize tautomers) using RDKit or OpenBabel.
• Target: Obtain the 3D crystal structure of the IDH1[R132H] mutant (e.g., PDB: 6B0Z). Prepare the protein via protonation state assignment, addition of missing residues/loops (using MODELLER), and energy minimization in a force field (e.g., AMBERff14SB).

Step 2 – Multi-Stage Deep Learning Virtual Screening

• Stage 1 – Rapid Docking: Perform high-throughput docking of the preprocessed NP library into the defined binding pocket (e.g., the allosteric site near R132H) using a fast docking tool (e.g., QuickVina 2) [31].
• Stage 2 – AI-Powered Re-scoring & Refinement: Input the top-ranked poses (e.g., 100,000) into a deep learning-based scoring model (e.g., RTMscore, a geometry-enhanced graph neural network) to obtain more accurate binding affinity predictions [31]. Optionally, refine top poses with flexible side-chain docking (e.g., using RosettaVS VSH mode) [18].
• Stage 3 – Interaction Filtering & Clustering: Filter compounds based on key interaction patterns (e.g., hydrogen bonds with ALA111, ARG119, TYR285) [39]. Cluster remaining hits by molecular scaffold and select diverse representatives for downstream validation.

Step 3 – In Silico Validation via Molecular Dynamics (MD)

• System Setup: Solvate the top ligand-protein complexes in a TIP3P water box, add counterions for neutrality, and apply periodic boundary conditions.
• Simulation & Analysis: Run 100+ ns MD simulations (using NAMD/GROMACS). Calculate binding free energy via MMPBSA/MMGBSA. Analyze RMSD, radius of gyration (Rg), and per-residue energy decomposition to confirm complex stability and key interactions [39].

Diagram: AI-driven workflow for discovering oncogenic mutant inhibitors.

Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Resource	Function in Protocol	Specifications / Notes
Coconut NP Database	Source of natural product structures for virtual screening.	Contains > 400,000 non-redundant NPs; requires format conversion to SDF/SMILES [39].
IDH1[R132H] Crystal Structure (PDB: 6B0Z)	Definitive 3D target for structure-based screening.	Requires preprocessing: protonation, loop modeling, and energy minimization.
RDKit Cheminformatics Toolkit	Open-source platform for NP structure standardization, descriptor calculation, and fingerprinting.	Essential for preparing ligand libraries and generating input features for ML models.
RosettaVS or AutoDock Vina	Software for molecular docking and initial pose generation.	RosettaVS allows for receptor flexibility [18]; Vina is widely used for speed [31].
Graph Neural Network (GNN) Model (e.g., RTMscore)	Deep learning model for accurate binding affinity prediction from docking poses.	Superior to classical scoring functions; requires 3D complex as input [31].
AMBER/OpenMM Software Suite	Platform for running molecular dynamics simulations and free energy calculations.	Validates stability of predicted complexes and refines binding affinity estimates [39].

Table 2: Key research reagents and computational tools for oncology-focused NP discovery.

Application Note 2: Antimicrobials – Immune-Modulatory Approaches

Objective: Discover natural products that act synergistically with the host immune system to clear bacterial infections, moving beyond direct bactericidal activity [40]. Background: Standard susceptibility testing fails to account for immune synergy. Colistin, considered "resistant" in vitro due to the mcr gene, remains effective in vivo by collaborating with host antimicrobial peptides in blood [40].

Protocol: Screening for Immune-Compatible Antimicrobials

Step 1 – Define Predictive Bioactivity Signature

• Data Curation: Compile datasets of compounds with known outcomes in both standard MIC assays and immune-cell co-culture assays (e.g., compounds that sensitize bacteria to neutrophil killing).
• Feature Engineering: Generate molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and sub-structure graphs for each compound. Incorporate features predictive of membrane interaction (e.g., charge, hydrophobicity) relevant to immune peptide synergy.

Step 2 – Train a Predictive Dual-Activity Model

• Model Architecture: Implement a multi-task Graph Neural Network. One task predicts standard MIC, the other predicts a metric of "immune potentiation" (e.g., fold-change in bacterial killing in human whole blood vs. broth).
• Training & Validation: Train the model on the curated dataset. Use rigorous time-split cross-validation to prevent data leakage and ensure generalizability to novel scaffolds.

Step 3 – In Vitro Validation in Immune-Relevant Assays

• Primary Screening: Test top AI-predicted NPs for minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) in standard Mueller-Hinton broth.
• Immune Synergy Assay: Perform a parallel assay incubating bacteria with the NP at sub-MIC concentrations in freshly collected, heparinized human whole blood or in the presence of isolated neutrophils. Measure bacterial survival (CFU/mL) after 1-3 hours.
• Hit Criteria: Prioritize compounds that show weak or no activity in the standard MIC assay but demonstrate significant (>50%) killing in the whole blood/neutrophil assay [40].

Diagram: Screening pipeline for immune-compatible antimicrobial natural products.

Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Resource	Function in Protocol	Specifications / Notes
Human Whole Blood (Fresh)	Physiologically relevant medium for immune synergy validation assays.	Must be collected ethically with anticoagulant (e.g., heparin); use within hours [40].
Isolated Human Neutrophils	Primary immune effector cells for mechanistic studies.	Isolate via density gradient centrifugation (e.g., Ficoll-Paque).
Bacterial Strains (WT & Resistant)	Target pathogens for screening (e.g., E. coli with/without mcr-1 gene).	Isogenic pairs are ideal for demonstrating immune-specific activity [40].
Multi-Task Graph Neural Network (GNN) Framework	AI model to predict separate but related antibacterial and immune-potentiating activities.	Implement using PyTorch Geometric or DeepGraphLibrary.
Physiologically Relevant Media (e.g., RPMI + 10% Serum)	Cell culture medium for assays involving immune cells.	More accurately mimics in vivo conditions than standard bacteriological broth.

Table 3: Key research reagents for discovering immune-compatible antimicrobials.

Application Note 3: Anti-inflammatory – Network Pharmacology Screening

Objective: Identify natural product mixtures or single compounds that modulate inflammatory disease networks via multi-target mechanisms [5]. Background: Traditional single-target screening is inadequate for complex inflammatory disorders (e.g., rheumatoid arthritis). Network pharmacology uses AI to map herb-ingredient-target-pathway-disease networks, predicting synergistic actions [5].

Protocol: Network Pharmacology Workflow

Step 1 – Construct and Impute the Herb-Target Network

• Data Collection: For a natural product of interest (e.g., an herbal extract), compile its known chemical constituents from databases (TCMSP, HIT). Predict ADMET properties.
• Target Prediction: Use deep learning-based target fishing models (e.g., DeepPurpose, SEA) to predict protein targets for each constituent, extending beyond known targets.
• Network Construction: Build a bipartite network connecting NPs to targets. Connect targets to inflammatory pathways (KEGG, Reactome) and diseases (DisGeNET).

Step 2 – AI-Powered Network Analysis and Prioritization

• Calculate Centrality: Use graph analysis algorithms (e.g., degree, betweenness centrality) on the target-pathway subnetwork to identify key hub targets critical to the inflammatory response.
• Predict Synergy: Employ network propagation or matrix factorization models to score and rank NP combinations based on their collective coverage of disease-relevant hub targets and pathways, predicting synergistic potential.

Step 3 – In Vitro Validation in Multi-Target Assays

• Multi-Target Binding Assays: Validate top-predicted single NPs or combinations in orthogonal binding assays (e.g., thermal shift, SPR) against the prioritized hub targets (e.g., COX-2, TNF-α, p38 MAPK).
• Cellular Phenotypic Screening: Test compounds in relevant cell models (e.g., LPS-stimulated macrophages). Measure multiple downstream inflammatory mediators (NO, PGE2, TNF-α, IL-6) via ELISA or multiplex assays to confirm multi-target network effects.

Diagram: Network pharmacology workflow for anti-inflammatory NP discovery.

Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent / Resource	Function in Protocol	Specifications / Notes
Traditional Chinese Medicine Systems Pharmacology (TCMSP) Database	Comprehensive database for herbal constituents, targets, and associated diseases.	Foundational for building initial herb-target networks.
Deep Learning Target Fishing Models (e.g., DeepPurpose)	AI tool for predicting potential protein targets of a novel NP.	Reduces reliance on limited known target annotations.
Graph Database (e.g., Neo4j)	Platform for storing, querying, and analyzing complex herb-target-pathway networks.	Enables efficient computation of network centrality measures.
Recombinant Inflammatory Proteins (e.g., COX-2, p38 MAPK kinase)	Validated targets for in vitro binding assays.	Required for experimental confirmation of multi-target predictions.
LPS-Stimulated Macrophage Cell Line (e.g., RAW 264.7)	Standardized cellular model for anti-inflammatory phenotypic screening.	Allows measurement of multiple cytokine/mediator outputs.
Multiplex Cytokine ELISA Panel	Technique for simultaneously quantifying multiple inflammatory mediators from cell supernatants.	Confirms broad, multi-target modulatory effect of NP hits.

Table 4: Key research reagents for network pharmacology-based anti-inflammatory discovery.

Navigating the Pitfalls: Critical Challenges and Strategic Optimizations for Reliable Screening

Virtual screening (VS) is a cornerstone of modern computer-aided drug discovery, enabling the rapid in silico evaluation of vast chemical libraries against therapeutic targets [18]. Within the specialized domain of natural products (NP) research, VS holds exceptional promise for unlocking novel bioactive scaffolds inspired by millions of years of evolutionary optimization [41]. However, the application of deep learning to this field is constrained by three fundamental data hurdles: small datasets, severe class imbalance, and high mixture variability.

Traditional NP discovery relies on labor-intensive extraction, fractionation, and bioactivity testing, yielding sparse, high-value data points [41]. This results in small datasets unsuitable for data-hungry deep learning models. Furthermore, confirmed active compounds are exceedingly rare compared to inactive ones, creating severe class imbalance that biases model predictions toward the majority (inactive) class [42]. Finally, the very nature of natural extracts—complex mixtures of chemically similar analogs—introduces "mixture variability," where activity may arise from single compounds, synergies, or impurities, confounding clear structure-activity relationships [41].

This article details application notes and protocols designed to overcome these hurdles, framed within a thesis on deep learning for the virtual screening of natural products. We present quantitative benchmarks of emerging solutions, detailed experimental methodologies, and essential toolkits to empower researchers in advancing this convergent field.

Quantitative Benchmarks of Computational Strategies

The performance of virtual screening methods under data-constrained scenarios can be quantitatively assessed using standardized benchmarks. The following tables summarize key metrics for current platforms and molecular representation schemes critical for NP research.

Table 1: Performance Benchmark of Virtual Screening Platforms on Standardized Datasets

Platform/Method	Type	Key Metric (Enrichment Factor EF₁%)	Optimal Use Case	Reference
RosettaVS (VSH Mode)	Physics-based Docking & Active Learning	16.72 (CASF2016)	Ultra-large library screening with flexible receptors [18]	[18]
Alpha-Pharm3D (Ph3DG)	Deep Learning (3D Pharmacophore)	~90% AUROC (ChEMBL Targets)	Scaffold hopping & screening with limited data [43]	[43]
Generative Diffusion Models (e.g., SurfDock)	Deep Learning (Generative)	>70% Pose Accuracy (RMSD ≤2Å)	High-accuracy binding pose prediction [13]	[13]
Traditional Methods (e.g., Glide SP)	Physics-based Docking	>94% Physically Valid Poses (PoseBusters)	Ensuring steric and chemical plausibility [13]	[13]
Hybrid AI-Structure Methods	Integrated Workflows	Varies by implementation	Balancing pose accuracy and physical validity [44] [13]	[44] [13]

Table 2: Comparison of Molecular Representations for Data-Efficient Learning

Representation Type	Example Format	Advantages for NP Research	Disadvantages/Limitations	Suitability for Small Data
1D String-Based	SMILES, SELFIES	Simple, compact; enables use of NLP models for analog generation [45].	Lacks 3D stereochemical details; syntax errors [45].	Low (requires large corpus)
2D Topological	Molecular Graphs (MPNN, GCN), Fingerprints (ECFP4)	Encodes atom-bond connectivity; better generalization from limited examples [45].	Ignores explicit 3D conformation [45].	Medium
3D Geometric	Point Clouds, Surfaces, 3D Pharmacophores	Captures stereochemistry and shape critical for NP activity; enables transfer learning [45] [43].	Computationally expensive; requires conformer generation [45].	High (informed by physics)
Multi-Modal Hybrid	Combined 2D Graph + 3D Shape	Leverages complementary strengths; can improve prediction robustness [45].	Increased model complexity and data preprocessing needs.	Medium-High

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Active Learning-Enhanced Virtual Screening for Ultra-Large Libraries

This protocol, based on the OpenVS platform [18], is designed to efficiently screen billion-compound libraries when experimental data is initially scarce.

• Library Preparation:

  • Source a "tangible" or make-on-demand virtual library (e.g., 3+ billion compounds) [46].
  • Prepare library in a standardized format (e.g., SMILES). Filter using lead-like criteria (e.g., molecular weight 250-350 Da, cLogP ≤3.5) [46].
  • Generate low-energy 3D conformers for each molecule using tools like OMEGA or RDKit.

• Initial Model Training:

  • Input: Start with a minimal seed set of known actives (10-50 compounds) and inactives (if available) for the target. If no data exists, use a pre-trained model on general protein-ligand complexes.
  • Docking: Use a high-speed docking mode (e.g., RosettaVS Virtual Screening Express - VSX) to dock the seed set and a random subset (e.g., 0.1%) of the large library [18].
  • Model Training: Train a target-specific neural network (e.g., a Graph Neural Network) to predict docking scores from molecular features using this initial data.

• Iterative Active Learning Cycle:

  • Prediction & Prioritization: Use the trained model to predict scores for the entire library. Prioritize the top-ranked 100,000-1,000,000 compounds not yet docked.
  • High-Precision Docking: Subject the prioritized compounds to a more accurate, flexible-receptor docking simulation (e.g., RosettaVS Virtual Screening High-Precision - VSH) [18].
  • Experimental Testing: Select a diverse subset (50-100) of the top-ranking compounds from VSH for in vitro synthesis and binding assay.
  • Model Update: Incorporate the new experimental results (actives/inactives) into the training set. Retrain the neural network.
  • Repeat steps 3a-3d for 3-5 cycles or until a satisfactory number of confirmed hits (e.g., IC50 < 10 µM) is obtained.

Protocol 2: 3D Pharmacophore Modeling with Alpha-Pharm3D for Data-Scarce Targets

This protocol leverages the Alpha-Pharm3D (Ph3DG) deep learning framework to build predictive models from very few known active compounds, ideal for novel NP targets [43].

• Data Curation and Cleaning:

  • Collect all available ligand activity data (pIC50, pKi, pEC50) for the target from databases like ChEMBL. A minimum of 20-30 unique active compounds is recommended to start.
  • For each compound, generate an ensemble of 10-15 low-energy 3D conformers using RDKit's EmbedMultipleConfs followed by optimization with the MMFF94 force field [43].
  • If available, obtain a high-resolution 3D structure of the target protein (apo or holo). Define the binding site coordinates.

• Pharmacophore Fingerprint Generation:

  • Ligand-Based Feature Assignment: For each conformer of each ligand, assign pharmacophoric features (e.g., hydrogen bond donor/acceptor, hydrophobic center, aromatic ring, charged group).
  • Receptor Constraint Integration: Map the spatial boundaries and chemical environment of the target's binding site onto the feature space.
  • Fingerprint Construction: Encode the spatial relationships and chemical types of the pharmacophoric features within the receptor constraints into a fixed-length, binary 3D pharmacophore fingerprint.

• Model Training and Validation:

  • Split the data into training (70%) and test (30%) sets, ensuring scaffold diversity is maintained in both sets.
  • Train the Alpha-Pharm3D model. The architecture learns the causal relationship between the 3D pharmacophore fingerprint and the ligand's bioactivity.
  • Validate model performance using the test set, prioritizing the Area Under the Precision-Recall Curve (AUPRC) due to expected severe class imbalance [42].

• Virtual Screening and Scaffold Hopping:

  • Apply the trained model to screen a natural product database or a focused library.
  • The model will rank compounds based on predicted activity. Prioritize high-ranking compounds that possess low Tanimoto similarity (<0.6) to the training set molecules, enabling scaffold hopping to novel NP chemotypes [43].

Workflow and Conceptual Diagrams

Diagram 1: AI-Enhanced Virtual Screening for Natural Products (Max Width: 760px)

Diagram 2: Addressing Data Hurdles in NP Screening (Max Width: 760px)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools and Databases for NP-Focused Virtual Screening

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function in NP Research	Key Feature for Data Hurdles	Reference/Access
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, conformer generation.	Open-source; enables standardization and feature engineering for small datasets.	https://www.rdkit.org
RosettaVS & OpenVS Platform	Docking & Active Learning Platform	High-accuracy, flexible-receptor docking integrated with active learning.	Efficiently screens ultra-large libraries with minimal initial data.	[18]
Alpha-Pharm3D (Ph3DG)	Deep Learning Framework	3D pharmacophore fingerprint prediction and screening.	Excels in scaffold hopping and activity prediction with scarce data.	[43]
ChEMBL Database	Bioactivity Database	Curated data on drug-like molecule activities.	Source for pre-training models to overcome small NP datasets via transfer learning.	https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/
COCONUT / NPASS	Natural Product Database	Collections of unique natural product structures with or without activity data.	Primary source of NP scaffolds for library building and validation.	Open Access Databases
Directory of Useful Decoys (DUD-E)	Benchmark Dataset	Sets of known actives and matched "decoy" inactives for targets.	Provides curated data for training and testing models under realistic imbalance.	http://dude.docking.org/
PoseBusters	Validation Toolkit	Checks physical and chemical plausibility of docked molecular structures.	Mitigates artifacts and errors from AI-predicted poses, crucial for reliable hits.	[13]

The integration of deep learning into the virtual screening of natural products represents a transformative shift in drug discovery, offering the potential to rapidly identify novel therapeutics from vast chemical and biological spaces. These models promise to accelerate the identification of hits against targets relevant to oncology, infection, and inflammation by predicting activity, inferring mechanisms, and prioritizing candidates [5]. However, a critical and often underexplored limitation persists: the generalization gap. This is the significant decline in model performance when applied to novel protein targets, unseen scaffolds, or structural motifs that differ from the training data distribution [47]. For natural product research—characterized by immense stereochemical complexity, rare scaffolds, and understudied target classes—this gap is particularly pronounced. Models may excel at interpolating within known regions of chemical and structural space but fail catastrophically when tasked with extrapolating to genuinely novel biology, a scenario common in exploring nature's diversity [48].

This document provides detailed application notes and experimental protocols designed to diagnose, quantify, and mitigate the generalization gap. Framed within a thesis on deep learning for virtual screening of natural products, it addresses a core paradox: while AI tools like graph neural networks (GNNs) and co-folding models achieve benchmark accuracy surpassing traditional methods, their real-world utility is constrained by physical implausibility and distributional bias [11] [48]. We outline rigorous validation workflows, introduce quantitative metrics for assessing model coverage, and propose a toolkit for robust, generalizable model deployment in natural product-focused campaigns.

Quantitative Landscape of Model Performance and Gaps

A comparison of state-of-the-art models reveals a landscape where high benchmark accuracy does not guarantee robust generalization. The following table summarizes key performance metrics and their associated limitations related to novelty.

Table: Benchmark Performance and Generalization Limitations of Key AI Models

Model / Tool	Reported Benchmark Performance	Primary Application	Documented Generalization Gap / Limitation
VirtuDockDL [11]	99% accuracy, F1=0.992, AUC=0.99 (HER2 dataset)	Virtual Screening, Binding Affinity Prediction	Performance on novel protein folds or ligands outside training chemical space not validated.
AlphaFold3 (AF3) [48]	~93% pose accuracy within 2Å (with known site)	Protein-Ligand Co-folding	Fails adversarial physical plausibility tests (e.g., binding site mutagenesis); shows ligand memorization [48].
RFdiffusion [47]	High designability for generated proteins	Protein Structure Generation	Biased sampling toward idealized helices/sheets; undersamples loops and complex motifs [47].
Traditional Docking (AutoDock Vina) [11] [48]	~60-82% accuracy	Molecular Docking	Lower top-tier accuracy but grounded in physics; performance may degrade more predictably.

The data indicates a critical divergence: models like VirtuDockDL demonstrate superior accuracy on established benchmarks but lack stress-testing on novel distributions [11]. Conversely, groundbreaking co-folding models like AF3 achieve high structural accuracy but exhibit fundamental physical misunderstandings, such as predicting stable binding even when critical interacting residues are mutated to alanine or phenylalanine [48]. Furthermore, generative models for protein design, optimized for "designability," systematically undersample the true diversity of observed protein structure space, particularly for loops and irregular motifs common in functional sites [47]. This bias directly impacts virtual screening for natural products, which often target allosteric or adaptive sites involving these very structural elements.

Foundational Concepts: Protein Representations and the Source of Bias

The generalization gap is often rooted in how proteins and ligands are numerically represented (encoded) for machine learning models. The choice of representation imposes inherent biases on what the model can learn.

Table: Protein Representation Strategies and Their Impact on Generalization

Representation Type	Description	Example Methods	Bias & Generalization Risk
Fixed (Rule-Based)	Hand-crafted features based on domain knowledge.	Amino acid composition, physicochemical descriptors, BLOSUM substitution matrices [49].	Limited to known human-design features; may miss complex, higher-order patterns relevant to novel scaffolds.
Learned (Sequence)	Features extracted from pre-trained protein language models (PLMs).	Embeddings from ESM3, ProtTrans [47] [49].	Captures evolutionary statistics; may struggle with neofunctionalized proteins or those with low homology.
Learned (Structure)	Features derived from 3D structure encoders.	Embeddings from ProteinMPNN, Foldseek tokens, ProtDomainSegmentor [47].	Powerful for known folds; performance degrades for novel folds or large conformational changes not in training data.
Combined (Multi-view)	Integrates sequence, structure, and/or dynamics data.	Graph representations combining atomic coordinates with residue types [11] [49].	Potentially more robust but requires aligned multi-modal data, which is scarce for novel targets.

For natural product research, where targets may include orphan receptors or metagenomic-derived enzymes with low sequence homology to known proteins, reliance on evolutionary (sequence-based) representations is a key risk. Models may default to the nearest known homolog, mis-predicting interactions with novel chemotypes. Structure-based representations face a similar challenge if the target adopts a rare fold. Therefore, protocol design must include steps to audit the applicability domain of the chosen representation relative to the novel target of interest.

Core Protocol I: Adversarial Stress-Testing of Co-folding Models

This protocol is designed to evaluate whether a protein-ligand co-folding model (e.g., AlphaFold3, RoseTTAFold All-Atom) has learned physically plausible interactions or is primarily memorizing training data correlations [48].

Objective: To assess model robustness and physical understanding by systematically perturbing the binding site and ligand in a known complex and evaluating the plausibility of predictions.

Materials & Software:

• Input Data: A high-resolution crystal structure of a protein-ligand complex (e.g., CDK2 with ATP, PDB ID: 1ATP).
• Software: Access to the co-folding model (e.g., AlphaFold3 Colab notebook, local RFdiffusion installation); molecular visualization software (PyMOL, ChimeraX).
• Scripting: Python environment with Biopython and RDKit for structure manipulation.

Procedure:

• Baseline Prediction:
  • Input the native protein sequence and ligand SMILES string/coordinates to the model. Generate a predicted complex.
  • Align the predicted structure to the experimental crystal structure. Calculate the Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD) of the ligand heavy atoms. A low RMSD (<2.0 Å) establishes baseline accuracy.

• Binding Site Mutagenesis Challenge:

  • Identify all protein residues within 5.0 Å of the bound ligand.
  • Create three mutated protein sequences for adversarial testing [48]:
    • Glycine Scan: Mutate all contacting residues to glycine.
    • Phenylalanine Scan: Mutate all contacting residues to phenylalanine.
    • Charge/Shape Disruption: Mutate residues to chemically dissimilar ones (e.g., positively charged Arg to negatively charged Glu).
  • Submit each mutated sequence with the original ligand to the co-folding model.

• Analysis & Interpretation:

  • Pose Consistency: Calculate ligand RMSD between predictions for mutants and the baseline prediction. A model relying on memorization will show little pose change despite the disruptive mutations.
  • Physical Plausibility: Visually inspect predictions for severe steric clashes (atoms occupying the same space) and the loss of key interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds, ionic interactions). A physically aware model should either predict ligand dissociation or a major pose rearrangement.
  • Metric: Report the percentage of adversarial cases where the model produces a physically implausible pose (e.g., ligand buried in a phenylalanine-packed pocket with clashes).

Expected Outcome: Studies indicate that even state-of-the-art models fail these tests, predicting stable binding in scenarios where it is physically impossible, thus revealing a lack of generalizable physical understanding [48].

Adversarial Stress-Test for Co-folding Models

Core Protocol II: Quantifying Generative Model Coverage with SHAPES

This protocol uses the SHAPES (Structural and Hierarchical Assessment of Proteins with Embedding Similarity) framework to evaluate how well a generative model of protein structures samples the full diversity of natural protein folds, especially those relevant to natural product binding (e.g., enzyme active sites with complex loops) [47].

Objective: To compute the Fréchet Protein Distance (FPD), a metric quantifying the distributional similarity between a set of model-generated protein structures and a reference database of natural protein domains.

Materials & Software:

• Generative Model: A trained model for protein backbone generation (e.g., RFdiffusion, Chroma).
• Reference Database: Filtered CATH or PDB database (e.g., resolution < 3.0 Å, R-free < 0.25).
• Embedding Models: Pre-trained models to generate structural embeddings (e.g., ESM3 for sequence-structure, Foldseek for local geometry, ProtDomainSegmentor for architecture).
• Computing Environment: Python with PyTorch and libraries for the embedding models.

Procedure:

• Generate Sample Ensemble:
  • Sample a large set (e.g., N=10,000) of protein structures from the generative model. It is critical to match the length distribution of your reference database to avoid bias.
  • Perform in silico design and folding for each backbone: design a sequence using ProteinMPNN and predict its structure using ESMFold. Filter for "designable" structures (RMSD between generated backbone and designed/folded structure < 2.0 Å) [47].

• Compute Structural Embeddings:

  • For both the generated (designable) set and the reference database, compute embeddings for each protein using multiple complementary models:
    • ESM3 (global): Use the mean-pooled encoder embeddings.
    • Foldseek (local): Encode local structural motifs into a token sequence.
    • ProtDomainSegmentor (architectural): Obtain embeddings that classify CATH architecture.

• Calculate Fréchet Protein Distance (FPD):

  • For each embedding type, model the embeddings of the reference set and the generated set as two multivariate Gaussian distributions.
  • Compute the Fréchet Distance between them: FPD = ||μ_ref - μ_gen||² + Tr(Σ_ref + Σ_gen - 2*(Σ_ref * Σ_gen)^(1/2)) where μ is the mean vector and Σ is the covariance matrix.
  • A lower FPD indicates better coverage of the natural structural space by the generative model.

Interpretation: High FPD scores reveal systematic undersampling. For example, models optimized for designability typically have high FPD for embeddings sensitive to loops and irregular structures, indicating a bias toward idealized, rigid folds [47]. This identifies a prior limitation for screening against dynamic targets.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Bridging the generalization gap requires both computational and experimental tools. The following table details key resources for developing and validating generalizable models in natural product screening.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for Generalizable Model Development

Tool / Resource	Category	Function in Addressing Generalization	Key Consideration
VirtuDockDL [11]	Virtual Screening Platform	Provides a high-accuracy GNN-based docking pipeline for benchmarking. Use as a baseline to compare novel methods.	Assess its performance drop on your proprietary, novel target set.
RDKit [11]	Cheminformatics	Standardizes molecular representation (SMILES to graphs) and calculates descriptors for model input and feature analysis.	Ensure canonical representation to avoid data leakage.
ProteinMPNN [47]	Protein Sequence Design	Designs sequences for generated backbones. Essential for the "designability" filter in Protocol II.	Used to test the plausibility of AI-generated protein structures.
ESMFold / AlphaFold2	Protein Structure Prediction	Folds ProteinMPNN-designed sequences to validate designability and create pseudo-structures for training.	Provides a computationally inexpensive proxy for experimental structure validation.
SHAPES Framework [47]	Evaluation Metric	Quantifies generative model coverage via Fréchet Protein Distance (FPD). Diagnoses bias toward idealized folds.	Implement with multiple embeddings (ESM3, Foldseek) for a holistic view.
Adversarial Mutagenesis Scripts	Validation Protocol	Code to perform binding site mutagenesis (Protocol I) and automate analysis of model robustness.	Critical for stress-testing any co-folding or binding prediction model before deployment.
Specialized Assay for Functional Validation	Experimental Reagent	Cell-based or biochemical assay for the novel target of interest (e.g., enzyme inhibition, receptor antagonism).	Ultimate ground truth. Required to confirm AI predictions on novel scaffolds and avoid in silico artifacts.

Integrated Workflow for Generalization-Aware Virtual Screening

The final protocol integrates the diagnostic elements above into a cohesive workflow for virtual screening campaigns targeting novel proteins or natural product scaffolds, minimizing the risk of generalization failure.

Objective: To execute a virtual screening campaign that actively identifies and accounts for model generalization limits when probing novel chemical and target space.

Procedure:

• Pre-Screening Diagnostic:
  • Target Novelty Assessment: Compute the similarity (e.g., using TM-score, sequence identity) of your target protein to the training data of your chosen model. If similarity is low, flag high risk.
  • Model Stress-Test: If a binding site is hypothesized, perform Protocol I (Adversarial Mutagenesis) on a known ligand for the nearest homolog. If the model fails, interpret its predictions with extreme caution.

• Structured Screening Cascade:

  • Stage 1 - Broad AI Screening: Use a high-throughput tool like VirtuDockDL to screen an ultra-large library (e.g., natural product-derived library).
  • Stage 2 - Redundancy & Consensus: Re-screen top hits using a physics-based docking method (e.g., AutoDock Vina, Glide). Prioritize compounds where AI and physics-based methods show consensus.
  • Stage 3 - Co-folding Refinement: For consensus hits, use a co-folding model (e.g., AF3) to generate a refined complex structure. Manually inspect the output for physical plausibility (no clashes, sensible interactions).

• Post-Screening Analysis & Triage:

  • Applicability Domain Check: Calculate the distance of each hit's molecular fingerprint/protein embedding to the nearest training data cluster. Flag outliers as higher-risk but potentially novel discoveries.
  • Explainability Analysis: Use attribution methods (e.g., saliency maps on the GNN, analysis of protein-ligand interaction graphs) to understand the model's reasoning. Predictions relying on chemically irrational patterns should be deprioritized.

Integrated Generalization-Aware Virtual Screening Workflow

The path to robust AI-driven discovery in natural product research requires a fundamental shift from prioritizing benchmark accuracy to demanding generalizable robustness. As demonstrated, models can achieve high accuracy by exploiting correlations in the training data without learning underlying physical principles, leading to failures on novel targets [48]. Mitigating this gap is not a single step but an integrated practice involving:

• Mandatory Adversarial Validation: Implementing protocols like binding site mutagenesis as a standard benchmark.
• Quantitative Coverage Assessment: Using metrics like FPD to audit the structural diversity of generative model outputs.
• Consensus & Triangulation: Never relying on a single AI model; using physics-based methods and experimental data as grounding mechanisms.

Future work must focus on integrating physical and chemical priors directly into model architectures, developing better uncertainty quantification for out-of-distribution predictions, and creating standardized, rigorous benchmark datasets rich in novel scaffolds and understudied protein families. By adopting the rigorous application notes and protocols outlined here, researchers can more safely harness the power of deep learning to explore the vast, untapped potential of natural products.

The application of deep learning (DL) to the virtual screening of natural products represents a paradigm shift in drug discovery, offering the potential to efficiently navigate vast, structurally complex chemical spaces [5]. However, the inherent "black box" nature of complex models like Graph Neural Networks (GNNs) poses a significant barrier to their adoption in rigorous scientific and regulatory environments [6]. Trust in these models cannot be established on predictive accuracy alone; it requires understanding the molecular features and reasoning pathways leading to a prediction [50]. This is particularly critical for natural products, where activity often arises from multifactorial interactions and subtle stereochemical nuances that models might overlook in favor of spurious correlations [5].

The core thesis framing this work is that interpretability is not a peripheral concern but a central requirement for the credible integration of AI into natural product research. Moving beyond the black box necessitates a multi-strategy framework combining inherently interpretable architectures, post-hoc explanation techniques, and robust experimental validation protocols. By implementing these strategies, researchers can transform DL models from opaque predictors into validated, insight-generating tools that guide hypothesis-driven discovery, ensure mechanistic plausibility, and ultimately build the trust required for translational application [51] [52].

Table 1: Key Computational Tools for Interpretable Virtual Screening Workflows

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Application in Interpretable NP Screening	Source/Reference
RDKit	Cheminformatics toolkit	Molecule standardization, 2D/3D descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, and conformer generation (ETKDG method).	[11] [53]
PyTorch Geometric	DL library for graphs	Building and training GNNs; enables custom layers for feature extraction and attribution.	[11]
VirtuDockDL Pipeline	Integrated DL screening	End-to-end pipeline using GNNs for activity prediction and docking for validation.	[11]
OMEGA & ConfGen	Conformer generation	Systematic generation of bioactive 3D conformations for structure-based methods.	[53]
AutoDock Vina, PyRx	Molecular docking	Validating AI-predicted hits and providing structural interaction hypotheses.	[11] [53]
SHAP (SHapley Additive exPlanations)	Model explanation	Explaining output of any ML model by quantifying feature contribution.	[50]
LIME (Local Interpretable Model-agnostic Explanations)	Model explanation	Creating local, interpretable surrogate models to approximate black-box predictions.	[50]
Grad-CAM for GNNs	Model visualization	Generating attribution maps highlighting important molecular subgraphs for a prediction.	[52]
SwissADME, QikProp	ADME/Tox prediction	Filtering for drug-like properties and assessing pharmacokinetic feasibility early.	[53]

Table 2: Comparison of Model Interpretability Techniques in Natural Product Context

Technique Category	Specific Method	Mechanism	Advantages for NPs	Key Limitations
Post-hoc Attribution	Saliency Maps / Gradients	Calculates gradient of output w.r.t. input features.	Simple; identifies sensitive atoms/bonds.	Can be noisy; suffers from saturation.	[52] [50]
Post-hoc Attribution	Grad-CAM for GNNs	Weights neuron activations by gradient flow to final layer.	Highlights critical functional subgraphs.	Resolution depends on chosen layer.	[52]
Surrogate Models	LIME	Perturbs input locally, fits simple model (e.g., linear).	Model-agnostic; provides local explanations.	Explanations may not be globally faithful.	[50]
Surrogate Models	SHAP	Game theory approach to assign feature importance.	Consistent, theoretically grounded explanations.	Computationally expensive for large features.	[50]
Perturbation-based	Feature Ablation	Systematically removes/masks features (e.g., atoms) and observes impact.	Intuitive; directly tests feature necessity.	Can break molecular integrity; combinatorial cost.	[50]
Inherent Design	Explanation Ensemble	Trains ensemble with loss that encourages consistent feature importance.	Improves explanation consistency by >120% [54].	Increased training complexity.	[54]
Knowledge Integration	Protocol-Guided Training	Incorporates clinical/bioactivity rules as soft constraints into loss function.	Aligns model logic with domain knowledge.	Requires formalized domain rules.	[51]

Experimental Protocols for Interpretability

Protocol 1: Data Preparation and Featurization for Interpretable Modeling

Objective: To standardize molecular data and generate multiple, interpretable feature representations for robust model training and analysis [11] [53].

Materials: Compound libraries (e.g., from ZINC, NPASS), RDKit, Standardizer/ChemAxon (optional).

Procedure:

• SMILES Standardization: For each compound, standardize the SMILES string using RDKit or dedicated tools (Standardizer). This includes neutralizing charges, removing solvents, and generating canonical tautomers.
• 2D Molecular Graph Construction: Using RDKit, parse the standardized SMILES to create a graph object G=(V, E). Nodes (V) represent atoms with features (atomic number, degree, hybridization). Edges (E) represent bonds with features (bond type, conjugation).
• 3D Conformer Generation: Generate an ensemble of low-energy 3D conformers using the ETKDG (Experimental-Torsion Knowledge Distance Geometry) method in RDKit [53]. Retain a representative conformer (e.g., the lowest energy) for each molecule.
• Descriptor & Fingerprint Calculation:
  • Calculate a set of molecular descriptors (e.g., MolLogP, TPSA, number of rotatable bonds) using RDKit.
  • Generate molecular fingerprints (e.g., Morgan fingerprints with radius 2).
• Data Partitioning: Split the dataset into training, validation, and test sets using scaffold splitting. This ensures structurally distinct molecules are in different sets, providing a more realistic assessment of a model's ability to generalize and its interpretability on novel chemotypes [5].

Protocol 2: Training a GNN with Explanation Ensembles for Consistent Feature Attribution

Objective: To train a Graph Neural Network (GNN) that not only performs accurately but also yields stable and consistent explanations across different training initializations [54].

Materials: PyTorch Geometric, prepared molecular graph dataset.

Procedure:

• Model Architecture Definition: Define an ensemble of S identical GNN sub-models (e.g., 5). Each sub-model e_i should have the same core architecture (e.g., GCN, GIN layers) but will be initialized with different random seeds.
• Discriminator Definition: Define a simple Multi-Layer Perceptron (MLP) discriminator D that takes an explanation vector (e.g., a gradient-based attribution map) as input and outputs a probability distribution over the S possible sub-model sources.
• Training Loop with Consistency Loss:
  • In each training epoch, forward pass a batch of graphs through all S sub-models to get predictions and loss (e.g., cross-entropy for activity classification).
  • For each sub-model, generate an explanation E_i(x) for the input x using a chosen method (e.g., gradient-based attribution).
  • Calculate the consistency loss: L_cons = -β * CELoss(D(E_i(x)), i), where β is a weighting hyperparameter. This loss encourages the sub-model to produce explanations that fool the discriminator about their origin.
  • The total loss for each sub-model is: L_total = L_task + L_cons.
  • Update the weights of all sub-models to minimize L_total.
  • Every n epochs, update only the discriminator D to correctly identify the source sub-model of an explanation.
• Inference: The final prediction is the average of all sub-model predictions. The final explanation is the average of the attribution maps from all sub-models, which will be more consistent and focused on robust features [54].

Protocol 3: Applying Attribution Methods (Grad-CAM) to a Trained GNN

Objective: To generate a visual heatmap identifying the molecular substructures (atoms/bonds) most influential for a specific prediction made by a trained GNN [52] [50].

Materials: A trained GNN model, PyTorch/PyTorch Geometric, molecular graph input.

Procedure:

• Forward Pass and Target Selection: Perform a forward pass of the target molecule through the trained GNN. Select the target class score (e.g., the logit for "active") as the gradient's target.
• Gradient Calculation: Set the model to evaluation mode but ensure gradients are enabled. Compute the gradient of the target score with respect to the activations of the final GNN convolutional layer. This yields a gradient for each neuron in that layer.
• Neuron Importance Weights: For each node (atom) in the molecular graph, calculate the global average of the gradients flowing into its feature map in the chosen layer. These averages form the neuron importance weights α_k.
• Heatmap Generation: Perform a weighted combination of the forward activation maps from the chosen layer, followed by a ReLU to retain only features with a positive influence: L_{Grad-CAM} = ReLU( Σ_k α_k * A^k ) where A^k is the activation map for neuron k. This results in a coarse attribution map over the graph's nodes.
• Visualization: Map the node importance scores from L_{Grad-CAM} back onto the 2D or 3D molecular structure. Use a color continuum (e.g., blue-white-red) to visually represent the relative importance of each atom in the model's decision.

Protocol 4: Experimental Validation of AI-Derived Hypotheses

Objective: To design and execute orthogonal biochemical and cellular assays to validate the activity and mechanistic hypotheses generated by interpretable AI models [5] [51].

Materials: AI-prioritized natural product candidates, relevant biological target and cell lines, assay reagents.

Procedure:

• Hit Prioritization based on Explanations: Rank AI-predicted hits not only by score but by explanation plausibility. Prioritize compounds where the attributed important substructures (e.g., a hydroxylated ring system) align with known pharmacophores or Structure-Activity Relationship (SAR) data from literature [53].
• Orthogonal Binding Assay: For a protein target, use a primary binding assay (e.g., Surface Plasmon Resonance - SPR, or Microscale Thermophoresis - MST) to confirm direct, dose-dependent binding of the top-ranked compounds. The K_D values provide quantitative validation.
• Functional Cellular Assay: Conduct a cell-based assay relevant to the disease pathology (e.g., inhibition of cytokine release for an anti-inflammatory target) to confirm functional activity in a more physiologically complex environment.
• Explanation-Driven Analog Testing: If the model attributes high importance to a specific moiety, procure or synthesize a small set of analogs where that moiety is modified or removed. Test these analogs in the above assays. A significant drop in activity for the modified analog provides strong experimental support for the model's explanation, moving from correlation toward causation [5].
• Protocol Compliance Check: For models integrated with known bioactivity rules [51], verify that the experimentally validated active compounds do not violate the fundamental constraints encoded from domain knowledge, ensuring continuity with established science.

Mandatory Visualizations: Workflows & Architectures

Diagram 1: Integrated workflow for interpretable AI in natural product screening.

Diagram 2: Architecture of an explanation ensemble for consistent feature attribution.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Interpretable AI-Driven Discovery

Category	Item / Software Solution	Function & Rationale	Critical Application Note
Core Cheminformatics	RDKit (Open Source)	Fundamental library for molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, and graph creation. The foundation for all molecular featurization [11] [53].	Use the ETKDG method for reliable 3D conformer generation. Standardize all inputs to ensure reproducibility.
Deep Learning Framework	PyTorch Geometric (Open Source)	Specialized library for building and training GNNs. Enables implementation of custom explanation ensemble architectures [11].	Essential for creating the GNN models at the heart of modern virtual screening pipelines.
Interpretability Libraries	Captum (for PyTorch), SHAP, LIME	Provide off-the-shelf implementations of attribution and explanation methods (Integrated Gradients, SHAP, etc.) for analyzing trained models [50].	Use to generate initial explanations and benchmark against custom methods like explanation ensembles.
Virtual Screening Pipeline	VirtuDockDL (Open Source)	Integrated platform combining GNN-based activity prediction with molecular docking for validation [11].	Serves as a benchmark and starting framework for developing an interpretable screening workflow.
Conformer Generation	OMEGA (Commercial), RDKit ETKDG (Open)	Generate realistic, low-energy 3D conformations necessary for structure-based interpretation and docking [53].	Critical: The quality of 3D conformers directly impacts the validity of any structure-based explanation or docking result.
Molecular Docking	AutoDock Vina, PyRx (Open Source)	Validate AI predictions and generate testable structural hypotheses (e.g., binding pose, key interactions) [11].	Docking scores alone are insufficient; always visually inspect the proposed binding mode for chemical plausibility.
ADME/Tox Prediction	SwissADME (Web Tool), QikProp (Commercial)	Filter virtual hits for drug-like properties (lipophilicity, solubility, etc.) early in the pipeline [53].	Use as a prioritization filter, not an absolute gatekeeper, especially for naturally derived chemotypes which may violate classical rules.
Assay Validation	SPR/BLI Biosensors, Cell-Based Reporter Kits	Provide orthogonal experimental validation of AI-predicted hits and test specific mechanistic hypotheses derived from model explanations [5].	The choice of assay must be aligned with the model's prediction task (e.g., binding vs. functional inhibition).

The discovery of therapeutic agents from natural products (NPs) represents a historically rich yet computationally complex frontier in drug development. NPs offer unparalleled chemical diversity and bioactivity but pose significant challenges for conventional screening due to their structural complexity, mixture-based sources, and frequently limited labeled data [5]. Deep learning (DL) has emerged as a transformative force in this domain, enabling the prediction of bioactivity, pharmacokinetics, and multi-target engagement from molecular structure [44] [55]. However, the path from a computational prediction to a validated lead compound is fraught with pitfalls, including model overfitting on small datasets, generalization failures, and the high cost of experimental validation [56] [57].

This article delineates critical optimization levers within a DL pipeline for NP-based virtual screening (VS), framed within a broader thesis on accelerating drug discovery from natural sources. We focus on two interconnected pillars: adaptive active learning loops that efficiently bridge prediction and experiment, and rigorous validation frameworks that ensure computational findings are robust, reproducible, and translationally relevant. By integrating methodologies such as Bayesian active learning [58], human-in-the-loop refinement [57], and multi-tiered computational validation [56] [59], we present a structured approach to navigating the chemical space of NPs with greater confidence and efficiency.

Active Learning Methodology for Iterative Candidate Discovery

Active Learning (AL) optimizes the data acquisition process by iteratively selecting the most informative candidates for expert or experimental validation, thereby refining the predictive model with minimal resource expenditure [57]. This closed-loop system is essential for NP research, where data is scarce and experimental validation is costly.

Core Algorithmic Framework and Acquisition Strategies

The AL cycle formalizes the interaction between a predictive model and an oracle (e.g., a human expert or a wet-lab assay). The goal is to optimize a scoring function, s(x), for a molecule x, which often combines predicted bioactivity (f_θ(x)) and analytically computable properties (e.g., drug-likeness) [57].

A pivotal component is the acquisition function, which identifies candidates for which model validation would yield the maximum information gain. The Expected Predictive Information Gain (EPIG) criterion is particularly effective for goal-oriented generation, as it selects molecules that will most reduce predictive uncertainty within a region of interest (e.g., the top-ranked candidates) [57]. This moves beyond simple uncertainty sampling to improve the accuracy of the final candidate shortlist directly.

Bayesian Neural Networks (BNNs) are well-suited for AL as they provide a natural measure of predictive uncertainty (epistemic uncertainty). In a study targeting mutant IDH1 inhibitors, a BNN was used to screen ~3.1 million compounds. The model's calibrated uncertainty estimates drove an upper-confidence-bound acquisition strategy, prioritizing compounds with high predicted activity and high uncertainty for further generative design or validation [58]. This approach balances exploration (testing uncertain regions) with exploitation (selecting predicted high-actives).

Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Integration

Pure computational AL can be gated by the "reality gap" between model scores and real-world activity. Integrating domain experts within the loop provides a cost-effective proxy for early-stage experimental validation [57]. Experts can confirm or refute model predictions, provide confidence scores, and curate new training data. This feedback refines the property predictor f_θ, aligning it more closely with expert knowledge and mitigating overfitting to artifacts in the original training data.

Table 1: Comparison of Acquisition Strategies for Active Learning in Virtual Screening

Acquisition Strategy	Core Principle	Advantages	Best-Suited Context	Example Performance
Expected Predictive Information Gain (EPIG) [57]	Selects data points that maximize expected reduction in prediction error for target region.	Prediction-oriented; optimizes final candidate list quality.	Goal-oriented generation with a focused chemical space.	Improved oracle alignment and drug-likeness of top-ranked molecules [57].
Bayesian Uncertainty (Upper Confidence Bound) [58]	Selects compounds with high predicted mean + high uncertainty.	Balances exploration and exploitation; quantifiable uncertainty.	Ultra-large libraries initial screening and scaffold hopping.	Identified novel, diverse IDH1 inhibitor scaffolds from 3.1M compounds [58].
Diversity-Based Sampling	Selects candidates to maximize chemical diversity of the training set.	Broadly expands model's applicability domain.	Early-stage model training with very sparse initial data.	Prevents clustering and improves coverage of chemical space.
Human-in-the-Loop Curation [57]	Expert selects/annotates based on domain knowledge beyond the model.	Incorporates tacit knowledge; corrects model biases.	Complex NPs, scaffold validation, and ADMET prioritization.	Refines predictors to better match expert assessment and wet-lab outcomes [57].

Diagram 1: The Active Learning Loop for NP Screening. This iterative cycle prioritizes informative compounds for validation to efficiently refine the predictive model and generate a robust candidate shortlist.

Robust Validation Frameworks for Translational Confidence

A predictive model's value is determined by its robustness and generalizability. For NP discovery, validation must extend beyond standard random split cross-validation to account for temporal bias, scaffold novelty, and ultimately, biological reality [56].

Benchmarking and Pitfalls in Model Evaluation

Robust benchmarking in DL for VS must control for several confounding factors: data preprocessing, hyperparameter tuning budgets, and especially, data leakage from inappropriate dataset splits [56]. A study evaluating DL for RNA-seq data prediction emphasized that performance variability due to random data splits can be substantial, sometimes overshadowing the differences between model architectures [56]. This underscores the need for rigorous, repeated holdout validation and standardized benchmarking pipelines.

Key performance metrics must be aligned with the task:

• For Classification (Active/Inactive): Use Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC), precision-recall curves (especially for imbalanced data), and F1-score.
• For Regression (pIC50/Activity Prediction): Use Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), Mean Absolute Error (MAE), and the coefficient of determination (R²) [60] [59].
• For Survival Analysis (Patient Outcomes): Use the concordance index (C-index) [56].

Table 2: Multi-Tiered Validation Framework for NP Deep Learning Models

Validation Tier	Primary Objective	Key Methods & Protocols	Success Criteria & Metrics
Tier 1: Internal Statistical Validation	Ensure model robustness and prevent overfitting on training data.	- Scaffold/Time-split cross-validation [5].- Repeated holdout validation with multiple random seeds [56].- Y-scrambling (check for chance correlation).	Performance stability across splits (<10% variance in key metric). Significant outperformance over scrambled model.
Tier 2: In Silico Prospective Validation	Test model on truly external, novel chemical space.	- Virtual screening of large, unseen NP libraries (e.g., COCONUT) [61].- Retrospective docking/MD simulation of top-ranked novel hits [58] [59].- ADMET prediction profiling [44].	Identification of novel hits with favorable binding poses, stability in MD, and drug-like ADMET profiles.
Tier 3: Experimental Validation	Confirm bioactivity and mechanism in biological systems.	- In vitro dose-response assays (e.g., cell viability, enzyme inhibition) [55].- Mechanistic studies (e.g., Western blot, qPCR for pathway analysis) [55].- Early cytotoxicity & selectivity profiling.	Experimental pIC50 within 1 log unit of prediction. Confirmation of hypothesized mechanism (e.g., pathway modulation).

Integrated Multi-Target and Pathway Validation

The polypharmacology of many NPs necessitates validation frameworks that go beyond single-target activity. A DL pipeline for ischemic stroke identified compounds against seven distinct targets. Validation included not only molecular docking against each target but also in vitro assays in neuronal cells measuring multi-parametric endpoints: cell viability, oxidative stress (lipid peroxidation), inflammation (TNF-α), and neurotrophic signaling (BDNF) [55]. This approach confirms both predicted multi-target activity and the resulting integrated functional phenotype.

Similarly, a study on Hypericum perforatum antioxidants combined machine learning prediction with experimental validation of the Keap1/Nrf2/ARE pathway via molecular dynamics, confirming the mechanism of action for the top predicted compounds [60].

Diagram 2: A Three-Tiered Validation Framework. This gating system ensures candidates pass successive hurdles of statistical, computational, and experimental validation before being designated as leads.

Application Notes & Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Implementing a Bayesian Active Learning Loop for Novel Inhibitor Discovery

Objective: To discover novel NP-derived inhibitors of a therapeutic target (e.g., mutant IDH1 [58]) using a BNN-guided AL loop.

Materials:

• Initial Dataset: ChEMBL or similar bioactivity data for target (~1000-5000 compounds).
• Unlabeled Pool: NP database (e.g., COCONUT [61], Selleckchem Natural Product Library [59]) filtered for drug-likeness.
• Software: Python with PyTorch/PyTorch Geometric for BNN; RDKit for cheminformatics; docking software (AutoDock Vina, GNINA).

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Initial Model Training:

  • Represent compounds as extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) or graph structures.
  • Train a BNN regression model to predict pIC50/pChEMBL value from the initial dataset. Use a probabilistic layer to output mean (μ) and variance (σ²) for each prediction.
  • Validate using scaffold split to ensure generalizability to novel chemotypes.

• Active Learning Cycle (Repeat for N=5-10 rounds): a. Prediction & Acquisition: Use the trained BNN to predict (μ, σ²) for all compounds in the unlabeled NP pool. Calculate the Upper Confidence Bound (UCB) score: UCB = μ + β * σ, where β is an exploration parameter. b. Selection: Rank compounds by UCB and select the top K (e.g., K=50) for expert review or docking. c. Oracle Evaluation: Subject the top K compounds to molecular docking against the target structure. Use consensus scoring and binding pose inspection to generate a proxy "active/inactive" label or a continuous score. d. Data Augmentation: Add the newly labeled (compound, score) pairs to the training dataset. e. Model Retraining: Retrain the BNN on the augmented dataset.

• Exit & Validation:

  • Exit when a predefined number of rounds is completed or when the top-ranked compounds' predicted variance falls below a threshold.
  • Subject the final top-ranked, novel NPs (e.g., top 20) to triplicate 200-ns molecular dynamics (MD) simulations and binding free energy calculations (MM/GBSA) to confirm stability and affinity [58].
  • Select 3-5 top candidates for in vitro experimental validation.

Protocol 2: Deep Learning-Driven Virtual Screening with RigorousIn SilicoValidation

Objective: To screen a large NP library against TNF-α [59] using a DL model and validate hits with a cascade of in silico methods.

Materials:

• Training Data: IC50 data for TNF-α inhibitors from public databases (e.g., ChEMBL).
• Screening Library: Selleckchem Natural Compound database (2563 compounds) [59] or similar.
• Software: Deep learning framework (TensorFlow/PyTorch); AutoDock Vina; GROMACS/AMBER for MD; PyMOL.

Step-by-Step Procedure:

• Predictive Model Development & Tier 1 Validation:

  • Train a Graph Neural Network (GNN) or Transformer model to predict pIC50 from molecular graphs [11] [59].
  • Implement a strict time-split or scaffold-split validation [5]. Report AUC-ROC, RMSE, and MAE on the held-out test set. Perform Y-scrambling to confirm model learns real structure-activity relationships.

• Prospective Screening & Filtering (Tier 2 Validation): a. Virtual Screening: Apply the trained model to the entire NP library. Rank compounds by predicted pIC50. b. Drug-Likeness Filter: Apply Lipinski's Rule of Five and other filters (e.g., PAINS removal) to the top 10-20% of ranked compounds. c. Molecular Docking: Dock the filtered compounds into the active site of the TNF-α homotrimer (PDB: 2AZ5). Use a stringent binding affinity threshold (e.g., ≤ -8.7 kcal/mol) [59]. Visually inspect poses for key interactions. d. ADMET Prediction: Profile the docked hits for absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity using tools like ADMETlab or pkCSM.

• Advanced In Silico Validation:

  • For the 3-5 best docking hits, run 200-ns MD simulations in triplicate [59].
  • Calculate stability metrics: Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD < 3Å), Root Mean Square Fluctuation (RMSF), Radius of Gyration (Rg), and intermolecular Hydrogen Bonds.
  • Compute binding free energies using the MM/GBSA method. Compounds with favorable ΔG and stable interaction profiles (e.g., Imperialine, Veratramine for TNF-α [59]) proceed to in vitro testing.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Computational Tools & Databases for NP Deep Learning Screening

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Pipeline	Access & Notes
COCONUT [61]	Database	A comprehensive, open NP library (>695,000 compounds) for virtual screening and novel hit discovery.	Web: https://coconut.naturalproducts.net. Provides SMILES and structural data.
ChEMBL	Database	Curated bioactivity data for training DL QSAR/QSPR models across thousands of targets.	Web: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/chembl/. Essential source for labeled training data.
RDKit	Software Cheminformatics Toolkit	Open-source library for molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, fingerprint generation, and graph conversion.	Python package. Fundamental for data preprocessing and feature engineering.
PyTorch Geometric	Software Deep Learning Library	Extension of PyTorch for building and training GNNs on molecular graph data.	Python package. Enables state-of-the-art graph-based molecular modeling [11].
VirtuDockDL [11]	Software Pipeline	An automated DL-based web platform integrating GNN modeling and virtual screening.	GitHub: https://github.com/FatimaNoor74/VirtuDockDL. Example of an integrated screening system.
AutoDock Vina	Software Docking Tool	Fast, widely-used molecular docking for binding pose prediction and affinity estimation.	Open-source. Standard for structure-based virtual screening steps.
GROMACS	Software Molecular Dynamics	High-performance MD simulation package for validating binding stability and calculating free energies.	Open-source. Requires HPC resources for production-level simulations [58] [59].
Metis UI [57]	Software Interface	A user interface designed to facilitate Human-in-the-Loop feedback for molecule evaluation and model refinement.	Enables efficient integration of expert knowledge into AL cycles.

Benchmarks and Reality Checks: Evaluating Performance and Translating Predictions to Lab Success

Application Notes & Protocols Thesis Context: Deep Learning for Virtual Screening of Natural Products

In the context of deep learning-driven virtual screening (VS) for natural product research, the evaluation of model performance transcends simple accuracy. The primary goal is to computationally prioritize a minimal subset of compounds from vast libraries (often exceeding millions of molecules) that contains a high proportion of true bioactive hits, thereby drastically reducing the cost and time of subsequent wet-lab validation [31]. This necessitates metrics that evaluate the ranking quality and early enrichment capability of models.

Three metrics are paramount: the Enrichment Factor (EF), which quantifies the concentration of active molecules at the top of a ranked list; the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC-ROC), which summarizes overall ranking performance across all thresholds [62]; and Early Recognition metrics, which are critical when experimental capacity is limited to only a few dozen compounds [63]. The integration of deep learning, through platforms like HelixVS, has shown significant improvements in these metrics, achieving an average 2.6-fold higher EF than classical docking tools like Vina [31].

This document provides detailed application notes and standardized protocols for calculating, interpreting, and applying these metrics within a VS workflow for natural product discovery.

Table 1: Core Performance Metrics for Virtual Screening

Metric	Formula / Definition	Interpretation	Ideal Value	Key Reference
Enrichment Factor (EF)	EF = (Hitssampled / Nsampled) / (Hitstotal / Ntotal)	Measures the fold-increase in the hit rate within a selected top fraction (e.g., top 1%) compared to a random selection.	>1 (Higher is better). 1 indicates random performance.	[63]
Area Under ROC Curve (AUC)	Area under the True Positive Rate (TPR) vs. False Positive Rate (FPR) plot across all classification thresholds [62].	Probability that a random active compound is ranked higher than a random inactive compound. Summarizes overall ranking ability.	1.0 (Perfect). 0.5 (Random).	[62] [64]
True Positive Rate (TPR/Recall/Sensitivity)	TPR = TP / (TP + FN)	Proportion of all active compounds successfully recovered in the selected subset.	1.0	[64]
False Positive Rate (FPR)	FPR = FP / (FP + TN)	Proportion of inactive compounds incorrectly selected in the subset.	0.0	[64]
Early Recognition (e.g., EF₁₀)	EF calculated specifically for the top N (e.g., 10, 50) ranked compounds.	Critical for low-throughput experimental follow-up. Measures practical utility under resource constraints.	Context-dependent; as high as possible.	[63]

Table 2: Benchmark Performance Comparison of VS Methods on DUD-E Dataset [31]

Method	Type	EF at 0.1%	EF at 1%	Key Characteristic
Vina	Classical Docking	17.065	10.022	Baseline physics-based method.
Glide SP	Classical Docking (Commercial)	25.900	14.737	Higher accuracy, computationally intensive.
KarmaDock	Deep Learning (Regression-based)	25.900	14.737	DL for pose and affinity prediction.
HelixVS	Hybrid Deep Learning Platform	44.205	26.968	Multi-stage screening integrating docking and DL scoring.
vSDC Consensus [63]	Consensus of Classical Docking	Not Reported	Not Reported	Improves early recognition (6–24% more hits in top 10).

Table 3: Interpretation Guide for AUC-ROC Values

AUC Range	Model Performance Interpretation	Implication for Virtual Screening
0.9 - 1.0	Excellent discrimination.	Model reliably ranks actives above inactives. Highly trustworthy for prioritization.
0.8 - 0.9	Good discrimination.	Useful for screening; most actives will be highly ranked.
0.7 - 0.8	Fair discrimination.	Requires caution; may need refinement or consensus with other methods.
0.5 - 0.7	Poor discrimination.	Model has limited ranking utility.
0.5	No discrimination (random).	The model's ranking is no better than chance.
< 0.5	Worse than random.	Predictions are perversely correlated; inverting predictions may help [62].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 2.1: Standard Workflow for Performance Evaluation

Objective: To quantitatively assess the performance of a virtual screening model using EF, AUC, and early recognition metrics. Inputs: A list of screened compounds with known true activity labels (Active/Inactive) and their model-assigned scores or ranks. Outputs: EF at specified fractions, AUC value, ROC curve, and early recognition statistics.

Procedure:

• Data Preparation: Prepare a benchmark dataset containing known actives and decoys. For natural products, this may involve curating a library of natural product-like actives and matched decoys from databases like ZINC [31].
• Model Scoring: Run the VS model (e.g., deep learning scoring, molecular docking) on the benchmark set. Obtain a continuous prediction score or binding affinity estimate for each compound.
• Rank Compounds: Rank all compounds from highest to lowest predicted score (i.e., most to least likely to be active).
• Calculate Metrics:
  • AUC-ROC: Use standard libraries (e.g., sklearn.metrics.roc_auc_score in Python [64] or aucMetric in MATLAB [65]). Input the true labels and continuous prediction scores.
  • Enrichment Factor (EF): a. Define the early recognition threshold (e.g., top 1% of the ranked list or the first 50 molecules). b. Count the number of true active compounds (Hitssampled) within this threshold. c. Calculate EF using the formula in Table 1.
  • Early Recognition Plot: Plot the cumulative fraction of actives recovered (Yield) against the fraction of the screened database examined. This visually demonstrates enrichment at early stages.
• Statistical Validation: Repeat the evaluation using time-split validation or cross-validation on multiple protein targets to assess generalizability, especially important for deep learning models [13].

Protocol 2.2: Implementing a Consensus Method for Enhanced Early Recognition (vSDC Method)

Objective: To improve the early recognition performance of virtual screening by combining results from multiple, divergent docking/scoring programs [63]. Principle: Individual docking programs show significant divergence in ranking compounds for a given target [63]. The variable Standard Deviation Consensus (vSDC) method identifies compounds consistently ranked well across multiple methods, increasing the probability of true hits in the very top ranks.

Procedure:

• Multiple VS Runs: Perform virtual screening on the same compound library using at least 3-4 independent methods (e.g., Glide, Gold, AutoDock Vina, a deep learning scorer).
• Normalize Scores: For each method, normalize the output scores (e.g., docking scores) to a common scale (e.g., Z-scores) to ensure comparability.
• Calculate Consensus: For each compound, calculate the mean and standard deviation (SD) of its normalized ranks or scores across all methods.
• Apply vSDC Filter: Select the final hit list by taking the intersection of compounds that appear within a certain number of standard deviations from the top rank in each individual method's list. For example, select compounds ranked in the top (Mean Rank - X*SD) across all methods [63].
• Evaluate: Compare the EF in the top 10-50 molecules of the vSDC list versus the top 10-50 of any single method's list. The vSDC method has been shown to find 6–24% more hits in the top 10 molecules [63].

Mandatory Visualizations

Workflow Diagram Title: Multi-Stage Deep Learning Virtual Screening Pipeline [31]

Diagram Title: vSDC Consensus Method for Early Hit Enrichment [63]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 4: Key Computational Tools & Datasets for Virtual Screening Evaluation

Item / Solution	Function in VS Performance Evaluation	Example / Note
Benchmark Datasets	Provide standardized sets of active compounds and matched decoys for fair evaluation of EF and AUC.	DUD-E [31]: Contains 102 targets with ~22,886 actives and decoys. CrossDocked: Used for training/evaluating DL models.
Classical Docking Software	Generate baseline poses and scores. Used in consensus methods and for comparison against DL.	AutoDock Vina [13], Glide SP [13], GOLD [63]. Varies in speed and accuracy.
Deep Learning Docking/Scoring	Provide advanced affinity predictions and pose generation. Often show superior EF [31].	HelixVS [31] (platform), KarmaDock [13], DiffBindFR [13]. Evaluate physical plausibility of poses [13].
Metric Calculation Libraries	Implement functions to compute AUC, ROC curves, and enrichment factors.	Python: scikit-learn (roc_auc_score, roc_curve) [64]. MATLAB: aucMetric object [65].
Pose Validation Toolkit	Assess the physical and chemical validity of predicted binding poses, a known weakness of some DL methods [13].	PoseBusters [13]: Checks for steric clashes, bond length validity, etc.
In-Vitro Assay Kits	Experimental validation of computationally prioritized hits. Essential for confirming true activity.	Target-specific biochemical (e.g., kinase, protease) or biophysical (e.g., SPR, ITC [63]) assay kits.

Within the broader thesis investigating deep learning for virtual screening of natural products, rigorous benchmarking on standardized datasets is a foundational pillar. These benchmarks provide the objective, reproducible framework necessary to evaluate, compare, and improve computational methods before their costly and time-consuming application to novel, complex chemical spaces like natural product libraries [4]. The success of structure-based virtual screening (SBVS) hinges on the accuracy of binding pose and affinity predictions [18]. Therefore, employing robust benchmarks is not merely an academic exercise but a critical step in developing reliable pipelines for discovering bioactive natural compounds with therapeutic potential.

Two datasets have become central to this benchmarking ecosystem: the Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E) and the Multifidelity PubChem BioAssay (MF-PCBA) collection. DUD-E established the paradigm for structure-based docking evaluation by providing property-matched decoys [66]. In contrast, MF-PCBA reflects a more recent shift toward benchmarking that mirrors real-world, data-driven drug discovery campaigns by incorporating multiple tiers of experimental fidelity [67]. This article details the application notes and protocols for utilizing these datasets, providing comparative insights to guide their effective use within deep learning projects aimed at natural product screening.

Standard Datasets for Virtual Screening: Characteristics and Curation

Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E)

DUD-E is a canonical benchmark designed to evaluate the enrichment capability of docking and scoring functions. Its core design principle is to challenge computational methods by providing "decoy" molecules that are physically similar to known active ligands but topologically dissimilar to minimize the chance of actual binding [66].

• Curation & Composition: It comprises 102 protein targets across diverse families (kinases, proteases, GPCRs, etc.), with 22,886 clustered active ligands drawn from ChEMBL. Each active is paired with 50 property-matched decoys from the ZINC database, matched by molecular weight, logP, hydrogen-bond donors/acceptors, rotatable bonds, and net formal charge [66].
• Primary Utility: It is the standard for assessing a method's ability to rank true actives ahead of decoys in a retrospective screen, typically measured by metrics like enrichment factor (EF) and area under the ROC curve (AUC) [18].

Multifidelity PubChem BioAssay (MF-PCBA)

MF-PCBA addresses a different need by benchmarking performance on high-throughput screening (HTS) data. Its key innovation is the "multifidelity" structure, which more accurately reflects industrial screening workflows [67].

• Curation & Composition: This curated collection contains 60 datasets derived from PubChem BioAssays. Each dataset provides two data modalities: a large primary screen (low-fidelity, high-noise activity measurements) and a much smaller confirmatory screen (high-fidelity, dose-response data) [67].
• Primary Utility: It benchmarks a model's ability to integrate heterogeneous data—leveraging large, noisy primary data alongside accurate but sparse confirmatory data—to predict potent compounds. This is essential for realistic machine learning applications in drug discovery [67].

Table 1: Comparative Summary of Key Benchmarking Datasets

Feature	DUD-E [66]	MF-PCBA [67]	LUDe [68]
Primary Purpose	Evaluate docking/scoring enrichment	Evaluate ML on multifidelity HTS data	Generate decoys for ligand-based screening
Data Type	Actives & property-matched decoys	Primary & confirmatory bioactivity data	Algorithmically generated decoys
# of Targets/Sets	102 targets	60 datasets	Tool (benchmarked on 102 targets)
Key Strength	Controlled challenge for structure-based methods	Realistic, large-scale HTS simulation	Reduces analog bias in decoy sets
Noted Limitation	Potential for analog and decoy bias [69]	High noise in primary screening data	Relatively newer, less historical data

Comparative Insights: Strengths, Limitations, and Applicability

Choosing the appropriate benchmark depends on the specific method and research question. A critical analysis reveals complementary strengths and weaknesses.

DUD-E provides a controlled, physics-focused challenge. Its clear decoy design allows for precise evaluation of a scoring function's ability to recognize correct intermolecular interactions. Studies have shown that top-performing physics-based methods on DUD-E, like the RosettaGenFF-VS, achieve high early enrichment (EF1% = 16.72) [18]. However, its construction can introduce hidden biases. Research indicates that some machine learning models may achieve high performance by inadvertently learning dataset-specific biases—such as analog bias (within actives) or decoy bias (systematic differences between actives and decoys)—rather than generalizable principles of molecular recognition [69]. This can lead to overoptimistic performance estimates that do not translate to prospective screens on novel scaffolds, a crucial consideration for exploring diverse natural products.

MF-PCBA offers superior real-world relevance. By incorporating the scale and noise of real HTS, it tests a model's robustness and data integration prowess, which is vital for practical drug discovery. The multifidelity task is inherently challenging but mirrors the actual process of triaging millions of compounds [67]. Its limitation is the inherent noise and potential experimental artifacts in the primary screening data, which can obscure the true structure-activity relationship.

For natural product research, this analysis is pivotal. Natural products often occupy distinct chemical space from synthetic drug-like libraries. A model that excels on DUD-E by exploiting analog bias may fail when presented with novel natural product scaffolds. Therefore, benchmarking on MF-PCBA, or using rigorous cross-validation schemes that separate distinct chemotypes, may provide a better proxy for real-world performance in this domain [4].

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Studies

Protocol for Benchmarking on DUD-E

This protocol outlines a standard retrospective screening benchmark using DUD-E to evaluate a virtual screening method's enrichment power.

• Target and Data Selection: Select one or multiple target systems from the 102 available in DUD-E. Download the corresponding active ligand structures and decoy sets from the official repository (http://dude.docking.org/) [66].
• Structure Preparation: Prepare the protein structure file provided by DUD-E. This typically involves adding hydrogen atoms, assigning protonation states, and potentially optimizing side-chain conformations for unresolved residues. Consistent preparation across all methods being compared is critical.
• Libratory Preparation: Prepare the ligand library by merging the active and decoy files. Generate 3D conformations for all decoy molecules using tools like OMEGA or RDKit. The active molecules are typically provided in their bound conformation.
• Virtual Screening Execution:
  • Perform docking of every compound (actives + decoys) into the defined binding site of the prepared protein structure using the method under evaluation (e.g., RosettaVS, AutoDock Vina, GLIDE).
  • For each compound, record the best docking score (e.g., predicted binding affinity) from the sampled poses.
• Performance Evaluation:
  • Rank all compounds from best (most favorable) to worst (least favorable) docking score.
  • Calculate standard enrichment metrics: the Area Under the ROC Curve (AUC), the Enrichment Factor at 1% and 10% (EF1%, EF10%), and the Boltzmann-Enhanced Discrimination of ROC (BEDROC). These metrics quantify how well the method prioritizes known actives over decoys [18] [66].
• Analysis and Interpretation: Report metrics across multiple targets to assess generalizability. Critically analyze failures and inspect top-ranked decoys to check for potential bias or unreasonable predictions [69].

Protocol for Benchmarking on MF-PCBA

This protocol evaluates a machine learning model's ability to predict high-fidelity activity from multifidelity data.

• Data Acquisition and Partitioning: Use the official code (https://github.com/davidbuterez/mf-pcba) to assemble the desired MF-PCBA dataset [67]. Strictly adhere to the predefined temporal split (based on PubChem deposition dates) to avoid data leakage and simulate a realistic prospective prediction scenario. The data is partitioned into training, validation, and test sets.
• Model Training with Multifidelity Data:
  • The training set contains both low-fidelity (primary) and high-fidelity (confirmatory) measurements.
  • Train the model (e.g., a deep neural network or graph neural network) to predict high-fidelity pXC50 values. The model must be designed to leverage the large volume of noisy primary data while anchoring its predictions on the reliable confirmatory data. Techniques include multi-task learning or fidelity-weighted loss functions [67].
• Prediction and Evaluation:
  • Use the trained model to predict activities for compounds in the held-out test set.
  • Evaluate performance using regression metrics (e.g., Mean Squared Error - MSE, Mean Absolute Error - MAE) for all test compounds. More importantly, evaluate ranking power by calculating the AUC-ROC for classifying compounds above a potent activity threshold (e.g., pXC50 > 6 or 7), which simulates hit identification.
• Comparative Analysis: Compare the multifidelity model's performance against baselines trained only on the limited high-fidelity data to quantify the value added by the primary screening data.

Integration within a Natural Product Screening Thesis

To align these benchmarks with a thesis on natural products, a specialized protocol is recommended.

• Benchmark Model Development: Develop and tune the deep learning model (e.g., a graph convolutional network for molecular representation) using standard benchmarks like DUD-E or MF-PCBA as described above.
• Natural Product Library Curation: Compile a comprehensive, diverse library of natural product structures from sources like Selleckchem [4], COCONUT, or NPASS. Prepare the library (generate 3D conformations, standardize representations) for screening.
• Prospective Virtual Screening: Apply the benchmarked and validated model to screen the natural product library against a therapeutic target of interest (e.g., TNF-α for rheumatoid arthritis [4]).
• Experimental Triaging & Validation: Select top-ranked natural product hits for further computational validation (e.g., molecular dynamics simulation, binding free energy calculations) and ultimately for in vitro experimental testing to confirm bioactivity.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions and Tools

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Benchmarking	Key Reference/Origin
DUD-E Dataset	Benchmark Dataset	Provides actives & property-matched decoys for enrichment evaluation of docking/scoring functions.	[66]
MF-PCBA Dataset & Code	Benchmark Dataset & Toolkit	Provides multifidelity HTS data and scripts to assemble datasets for benchmarking ML models.	[70] [67]
RosettaVS (OpenVS Platform)	Docking/Scoring Software	A state-of-the-art, physics-based virtual screening method and platform used for benchmarking.	[18]
AutoDock Vina	Docking Software	A widely used, open-source docking program often used as a baseline for performance comparison.	[18] [69]
LUDe Tool	Decoy Generation Tool	An open-source tool to generate decoy sets, designed to reduce analog bias; an alternative to DUD-E decoys.	[68]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Open-source library for molecular informatics; used for fingerprint generation, similarity calculation, and molecule processing.	[4]
PDBbind Database	Curated Binding Affinity Data	A comprehensive database of protein-ligand binding affinities; used for training and testing scoring functions.	Referenced in [69]
Selleckchem Natural Product Library	Chemical Library	A curated library of natural compounds; used as a target screening library in prospective studies.	[4]

Virtual screening (VS) is an indispensable computational tool in modern drug discovery, enabling the rapid evaluation of vast chemical libraries to identify potential therapeutic candidates. Within the specialized domain of natural products research, VS faces unique challenges, including the immense structural diversity and complexity of natural compound libraries, which demand robust and efficient computational strategies [71]. This landscape is defined by three principal methodological paradigms: traditional physics-based docking, pure deep learning (DL) approaches, and hybrid methods that integrate elements of both [13].

Traditional docking methods, such as Glide and AutoDock Vina, rely on force fields and empirical scoring functions to sample ligand conformations and rank binding poses. While robust and interpretable, they are often computationally intensive and can struggle with modeling full receptor flexibility [72]. The advent of deep learning has introduced transformative tools like DiffDock and EquiBind, which promise to predict binding poses with remarkable speed by learning directly from structural data [72] [13]. However, concerns regarding their physical plausibility, generalization to novel targets, and performance in real-world VS campaigns have emerged [13] [73]. In response, hybrid methods seek to leverage the complementary strengths of both paradigms—for instance, using DL models for rapid initial screening or binding site detection, followed by physics-based refinement and scoring [18] [74].

This analysis provides a detailed, comparative examination of these three paradigms, contextualized within the pursuit of bioactive natural products. It presents quantitative performance benchmarks, detailed experimental protocols tailored for natural product libraries, and a practical toolkit to guide researchers in selecting and implementing the most effective strategy for their virtual screening campaigns.

Performance Benchmarks and Comparative Analysis

A multi-dimensional evaluation of docking methods is crucial for assessing their practical utility in drug discovery. Performance varies significantly across paradigms depending on the specific task, such as accurate pose prediction (docking power) or correctly ranking active molecules (screening power) [18] [13].

Table 1: Performance Benchmarking Across Docking Paradigms

Evaluation Metric	Traditional Docking (e.g., Glide SP)	Pure Deep Learning (e.g., SurfDock)	Hybrid Methods (e.g., Interformer)	Notes & Dataset
Pose Accuracy (RMSD ≤ 2Å)	70-80% [13]	70-92% [13]	75-85% [13]	Performance on known complexes (e.g., Astex set). DL excels in ideal conditions [13].
Physical Validity (PB-Valid Rate)	>94% [13]	40-64% [13]	80-90% [13]	Measures chemically realistic poses. Traditional methods are superior [13].
Success Rate (RMSD ≤2Å & PB-Valid)	~70% [13]	33-61% [13]	~65% [13]	Combined metric for realistic, accurate poses. Hybrid methods offer the best balance [13].
Screening Power (EF1%)	11.9 (AutoDock Vina) [18]	Varies widely; can generalize poorly [13]	16.7 (RosettaGenFF-VS) [18]	Enrichment Factor of top 1%. Hybrid scoring functions can outperform [18].
Generalization to Novel Pockets	Moderate decline [13]	Sharp decline (e.g., ~20% success for Hard cases) [13] [73]	More stable than pure DL [13]	Performance on targets/pockets not represented in training data. DL is highly susceptible [73].
Computational Speed	Slow (CPU-intensive sampling) [72]	Very Fast (single forward pass) [72]	Moderate (combines fast DL filter with precise docking) [18] [74]	For ultra-large library screening, speed is critical. DL and hybrids enable billion-scale screens [18] [74].

The data reveals a clear trade-off landscape. Pure DL methods, particularly generative diffusion models, can achieve state-of-the-art pose accuracy under ideal, re-docking conditions [13]. However, this often comes at the cost of physical plausibility, as many generated poses exhibit unrealistic bond lengths, angles, or steric clashes [13]. More critically, their performance can degrade substantially when applied to novel protein targets or binding pockets not well-represented in the training data, a significant limitation for natural product screening against understudied targets [13] [73]. Traditional methods, while slower, consistently produce physically valid poses and show more robust generalization [13]. Hybrid methodologies emerge as a compelling compromise, achieving a balanced profile of good accuracy, high physical validity, and maintained performance in screening scenarios, as evidenced by the superior enrichment factor of RosettaGenFF-VS [18].

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols for Natural Product Screening

The following protocols detail step-by-step workflows for applying each paradigm to screen natural product libraries, incorporating best practices and lessons from recent research.

Protocol 1: Traditional Physics-Based Docking Workflow

This protocol is recommended when a high-quality experimental or predicted structure of the target protein is available and computational resources for detailed sampling are accessible.

Step 1: Target and Library Preparation

• Protein Preparation: Obtain the target protein structure (e.g., from PDB or AlphaFold prediction). Using software like Schrödinger's Protein Preparation Wizard or UCSF Chimera, add missing hydrogen atoms, assign protonation states (paying special attention to histidine residues), and optimize hydrogen bonding networks. For natural product targets, which may be flexible, consider using multiple receptor conformations if available [72].
• Binding Site Definition: Define the binding pocket coordinates based on a co-crystallized ligand or computational prediction (e.g., from FPocket or SiteMap).
• Natural Product Library Preparation: Compile a library of 3D natural product structures from databases like NPASS, CMAUP, or COCONUT [71]. Standardize structures (neutralize salts, generate tautomers, enumerate stereoisomers) and perform energy minimization. Filter based on drug-likeness (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five) and pan-assay interference (PAINS) substructures [71] [74].

Step 2: Molecular Docking Execution

• Software Selection: Choose a well-established docking program such as AutoDock Vina, Glide (SP or XP mode), or GOLD.
• Parameter Configuration: Set the search space grid to encompass the defined binding site with sufficient margin (e.g., 20Å x 20Å x 20Å). Configure sampling parameters: for Vina, exhaustiveness should be increased (e.g., 32-64) for better sampling of complex natural product scaffolds [71].
• Parallelized Docking: Run docking jobs in parallel on a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster or cloud platform to process large libraries [18].

Step 3: Post-Docking Analysis and Hit Selection

• Pose Clustering and Visualization: Cluster top-ranked poses for each compound and visually inspect a subset to ensure binding modes are chemically sensible and form key interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds, pi-stacking).
• Consensus Scoring: Mitigate scoring function bias by ranking compounds based on consensus scores from multiple functions (e.g., Vina score, MM/GBSA calculated binding energy).
• Interaction Analysis: Select top-ranked compounds for detailed analysis of protein-ligand interaction fingerprints (PLIF). Prioritize compounds that recapitulate interactions known to be critical for biological activity [71].

Protocol 2: Pure Deep Learning-Based Screening Workflow

This protocol is advantageous for the rapid initial screening of ultra-large libraries or when the binding site is unknown (blind docking). It is well-suited for ligand-based screening when active compounds are known [30].

Step 1: Data Curation and Model Selection/Training

• For Structure-Based DL Docking (e.g., DiffDock): Prepare a cleaned dataset of protein-ligand complexes. If a target-specific model is desired, fine-tune a pre-trained model on known binders for your target, if sufficient data exists.
• For Ligand-Based DL Screening (e.g., DMPNN): Assemble an active dataset of known inhibitors (positives) and a decoy/inactive dataset (negatives) for the biological target of interest. Use molecular fingerprints (e.g., Morgan fingerprints) or graph representations as input features [30].

Step 2: Library Processing and Prediction

• Input Preparation: For DL docking, prepare the protein structure (.pdb) and the library of ligand structures (.sdf or .mol2) in the required format. For ligand-based models, convert all natural product library compounds into the chosen molecular representation.
• High-Throughput Prediction: Run the trained DL model to generate predictions. DL docking will output predicted poses and confidence scores [72], while a classification model will output a probability score for activity [30].

Step 3: Filtering and Validation

• Pose Validation (for DL Docking): Pass all predicted poses through a validation tool like PoseBusters to filter out physically unrealistic predictions [13].
• Score Thresholding: Apply a conservative confidence or probability threshold to generate a shortlist of candidate hits. For example, select compounds where the predicted probability of activity is >0.9 [30].
• Downstream Refinement: Due to potential for false positives and physically implausible geometries, always refine the shortlist from a pure DL screen using a more rigorous traditional method (see Protocol 3.3).

Protocol 3: Hybrid Virtual Screening Workflow

This multi-stage protocol is designed for optimal efficiency and accuracy, ideal for screening billion-compound natural product libraries [18] [74].

Step 1: Ultra-Fast Pre-Screening

• Method: Use a fast DL-based scoring function or a ligand-based pharmacophore model to rapidly triage the entire library [18] [75].
• Execution: Screen a multi-billion compound library (e.g., from ZINC) using a model like RosettaVS's VSX mode or a validated pharmacophore query. The goal is to reduce the library size by 2-3 orders of magnitude to a manageable subset (e.g., 1-10 million compounds) [18] [74].

Step 2: High-Precision Docking

• Method: Apply a rigorous traditional or hybrid docking protocol to the pre-screened subset.
• Execution: Dock the subset using a high-accuracy method like RosettaVS's VSH mode (which incorporates receptor flexibility) or Glide XP [18]. Use more exhaustive sampling parameters than in a standard, full-library docking run.

Step 3: Advanced Scoring and Dynamics Validation

• Consensus & MM/GBSA: Re-score the top 1,000-10,000 poses using a consensus of scoring functions and compute more accurate binding energies via molecular mechanics with generalized Born and surface area solvation (MM/GBSA).
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulation: Perform short (50-100 ns) MD simulations on the top 50-100 complexes to evaluate stability, interaction persistence, and binding free energy via the Molecular Mechanics-Poisson Boltzmann Surface Area (MM-PBSA) method [75] [74]. This step is critical for natural products with flexible scaffolds.
• ADMET Prediction: Finally, predict absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity (ADMET) properties for the top-ranked, stable candidates to prioritize leads with the highest drug development potential [75] [71].

Workflow Visualizations

The following diagrams illustrate the logical flow and key decision points for the three primary virtual screening methodologies.

Diagram 1: Traditional Docking Workflow

Diagram 2: Pure Deep Learning Workflow

Diagram 3: Hybrid Multi-Stage Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Materials

Table 2: Key Software, Databases, and Resources for Virtual Screening

Category	Item/Solution	Primary Function in VS	Relevant Paradigm	Key References
Software & Platforms	AutoDock Vina, Schrödinger Glide, GOLD	Traditional sampling and scoring of protein-ligand poses.	Traditional, Hybrid	[18] [71]
	DiffDock, EquiBind, SurfDock	Deep learning-based pose prediction.	Pure DL	[72] [13]
	RosettaVS, OpenVS Platform	Hybrid docking and scalable screening platform integrating active learning.	Hybrid	[18]
	GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD	Molecular dynamics simulation for binding stability and free energy calculation.	Hybrid (Validation)	[75] [74]
Databases	ZINC, PubChem	Source of ultra-large, commercially available compound libraries.	All	[74]
	NPASS, CMAUP, COCONUT	Curated databases of natural products with associated bioactivity.	All	[71]
	PDBBind, BindingDB	Curated datasets of protein-ligand complexes for training and benchmarking.	Pure DL, Hybrid	[72] [13]
Libraries & Frameworks	RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit for molecule manipulation and fingerprinting.	All	[30] [74]
	PyTorch, TensorFlow	Deep learning frameworks for developing custom models.	Pure DL, Hybrid	[30]
Validation Tools	PoseBusters	Validates physical and chemical correctness of predicted molecular complexes.	Pure DL, Hybrid	[13]
	SwissADME, admetSAR	Predicts pharmacokinetic and toxicity profiles of hit compounds.	All	[75] [71]

The application of deep learning to the virtual screening of natural product libraries represents a paradigm shift in early drug discovery, promising to accelerate the identification of novel bioactive compounds [76]. However, the ultimate measure of any in silico platform is its ability to generate predictions that hold true in biological systems and, ultimately, in clinical settings. While advanced platforms can boast high computational hit rates, the translation to wet-lab confirmed hits and subsequent clinical candidates remains a significant bottleneck [77]. Recent analyses indicate that even with preclinical screening hit rates as high as 70%, only a fraction—approximately 14%—of these typically translate into viable clinical candidates [77]. This stark drop-off underscores the critical importance of robust, iterative wet-lab validation embedded within the discovery workflow. This application note details standardized protocols and analytical frameworks for validating deep learning virtual screening outputs, tracing the path from computational prediction to clinical translation.

Quantitative Landscape: Validation Rates and Attrition

The transition from in silico prediction to confirmed biological activity involves multiple validation stages, each with associated attrition rates. The following tables summarize key performance metrics and experimental parameters derived from recent literature and case studies.

Table 1: Stage-wise Attrition in AI-Driven Natural Product Discovery Pipelines

Validation Stage	Typical Input	Success Metric	Reported Rate Range	Primary Cause of Attrition
Virtual Screening	Multi-billion compound library [18]	Top-ranked compounds selected for in vitro testing	0.001% - 0.1% (Library -> Hits)	Scoring function inaccuracy, inadequate sampling of protein flexibility [18].
Primary In Vitro Assay	Computationally selected hits	Confirmed activity at relevant potency (e.g., IC50 < 10 µM)	10% - 44% [18]	False positives from docking, compound aggregation, assay interference.
Secondary & Counter-Screen	Primary in vitro hits	Selective activity against target; acceptable ADMET/cytotoxicity	~50-70% of primary hits	Lack of selectivity, off-target toxicity, poor physicochemical properties.
Preclinical Candidate	Validated lead series	In vivo efficacy and acceptable PK/PD profile	~14% of advanced leads [77]	Poor bioavailability, efficacy in vivo, toxicology.
Clinical Translation	Preclinical candidate	Phase I/II success	<10% of preclinical candidates	Clinical safety, lack of efficacy in humans, commercial considerations.

Table 2: Key Experimental Parameters for Wet-Lab Validation of Virtual Screening Hits

Parameter	Typical Protocol Specification	Purpose & Rationale
Compound Handling	DMSO stock solutions (<10 mM); storage at -20°C to -80°C; avoid freeze-thaw cycles.	Maintains compound stability and solubility for reliable assay results.
Primary Biochemical/Biological Assay	Dose-response (e.g., 8-point, 3-fold dilution); n≥2 technical replicates; include reference controls.	Confirms target engagement and quantifies potency (IC50/EC50).
Counter-Screen/Selectivity Panel	Test against related target isoforms or antitargets (e.g., hERG); assay at single high dose (e.g., 10 µM).	Assesses selectivity profile and flags pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS).
Cytotoxicity Assay	Cell viability assay (e.g., MTT, CellTiter-Glo) on relevant mammalian cell lines; 48-72 hr incubation.	Identifies general cellular toxicity unrelated to primary mechanism.
Early ADMET	Microsomal stability, Caco-2 permeability, plasma protein binding, kinetic solubility.	Provides early indication of drug-like properties and potential pharmacokinetic issues.

Core Experimental Protocols

Protocol A: PrimaryIn VitroValidation of Virtual Screening Hits

Objective: To confirm the predicted biological activity of computationally selected natural product derivatives or analogs in a target-specific assay.

Materials:

• Test compounds (as 10 mM DMSO stocks).
• Assay reagents (enzyme/substrate, cell line, ligands, detection reagents).
• Reference control inhibitor/agonist.
• Labware: 96-well or 384-well assay plates, polypropylene source plates.
• Instruments: Multichannel pipettes, plate washer, plate reader (absorbance/fluorescence/luminescence), liquid handling robot (optional).

Procedure:

• Assay Plate Preparation: Using a liquid handler or multichannel pipette, serially dilute reference control and test compounds in assay buffer across the plate. Include DMSO-only wells for 0% inhibition and maximal activity wells for 100% inhibition controls.
• Reaction Initiation: Add the target protein (enzyme, receptor preparation) or cells to all wells. For biochemical assays, initiate the reaction by adding the substrate. For cell-based assays, incubate compounds with cells for the prescribed time (e.g., 1-72 hours).
• Signal Development & Measurement: Incubate plate under optimal conditions (e.g., 37°C, 5% CO2 for cells). Stop the reaction if necessary and add detection reagents. Measure the signal using an appropriate plate reader.
• Data Analysis: Normalize raw data to control wells (0% and 100% inhibition). Fit dose-response curves using a four-parameter logistic (4PL) model to determine the half-maximal inhibitory/effective concentration (IC50/EC50). A compound is considered a validated hit if it shows a dose-response with a potency (IC50/EC50) below the predetermined threshold (e.g., < 10 µM) and a curve fit (R²) > 0.9.

Protocol B: Selectivity Profiling & Counter-Screening

Objective: To determine the selectivity of validated hits against related biological targets and to identify nonspecific interference.

Materials:

• Validated hits from Protocol A.
• Assay kits or reagents for counter-targets (e.g., related kinase isoforms, GPCR family members, hERG channel binding assay).
• Pan-assay interference (PAINS) and aggregation assay reagents (e.g., detergent like Triton X-100, enzyme with and without detergent).

Procedure:

• Selectivity Panel Testing: Perform the primary assay protocol (Protocol A) for each hit against a panel of 3-5 closely related targets (e.g., kinase family members) at a single high concentration (e.g., 10 µM). Calculate % inhibition/activity for each target.
• Interference Check (Detergent-Test): Perform the primary biochemical assay with and without a non-ionic detergent (e.g., 0.01% Triton X-100). A significant reduction in activity in the presence of detergent suggests compound aggregation.
• Data Interpretation: A selective compound should show strong activity only against the primary target (>50% inhibition at 10 µM) and minimal activity against counter-targets (<25% inhibition). Activity abolished by detergent indicates an aggregation artifact, marking the compound as a false positive.

Visualization of Workflows and Frameworks

Diagram 1: Integrated AI & Wet-Lab Drug Discovery Workflow (100 chars)

Diagram 2: V3 Clinical Translation Framework for AI Hits (99 chars)

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Key Reagents and Materials for Validation Assays

Item	Function & Application	Example/Notes
Target-Specific Assay Kits	Provide optimized, validated reagents for biochemical activity assays (e.g., kinases, proteases, epigenetic targets). Ensure reproducibility and save development time.	Commercially available from suppliers like Reaction Biology, BPS Bioscience, or Cisbio.
Cell-Based Reporter Assay Systems	Enable functional assessment of compounds in a cellular context (e.g., GPCR activation, pathway modulation).	Ready-to-use cell lines with luciferase or GFP reporters (Promega, Invitrogen).
Cytotoxicity/Viability Assay Kits	Quantify compound-induced cell death or metabolic inhibition to assess therapeutic window.	MTT, CellTiter-Glo (Promega), or PrestoBlue assays.
hERG Inhibition Assay Kit	Early screening for potential cardiotoxicity liability associated with hERG potassium channel blockade.	Non-radioactive, fluorescence-based kits (e.g., from Eurofins).
Liver Microsomes (Human & Rodent)	Evaluate metabolic stability and identify major metabolites in Phase I reactions. Critical for early ADMET.	Pooled human/rat liver microsomes (e.g., from Corning or Xenotech).
Caco-2 Cell Line	Assess intestinal permeability and predict oral absorption potential.	High-quality, low-passage cells from certified repositories (ATCC).
Pan-Assay Interference (PAINS) Filters	Computational filters to identify compounds with problematic, promiscuous chemical motifs.	Implement as a filter in cheminformatics pipelines (e.g., using RDKit).
Detergent Solutions (e.g., Triton X-100)	Used in biochemical counter-screens to test if compound activity is due to nonspecific aggregation.	Final concentration typically 0.01% v/v in assay buffer.
Reference/Control Compounds	Provide benchmarks for assay performance (positive/negative controls) and data normalization.	Potent, well-characterized inhibitors or agonists for the target of interest.
DMSO (Cell Culture Grade)	Universal solvent for preparing compound stocks. Must be high purity and sterile for cell-based work.	Hybri-Max or equivalent, stored anhydrous.

Conclusion

The integration of deep learning into the virtual screening of natural products represents a powerful convergence of traditional bio-prospecting and cutting-edge computational science. As outlined, this synergy addresses the inherent complexity of natural product spaces through specialized foundation models [citation:5], efficient hybrid screening pipelines [citation:2][citation:9], and a growing understanding of methodological limitations [citation:3]. The key takeaway is that DL acts not as a replacement, but as a potent force multiplier—dramatically expanding the searchable chemical universe, prioritizing the most promising candidates for costly experimental validation, and accelerating the early discovery timeline. Future directions must focus on creating larger, curated, and standardized natural product datasets, developing more interpretable and generalizable models, and fostering closer collaboration between computational scientists and medicinal chemists. By doing so, the field can move beyond isolated successes toward a robust, scalable framework that systematically translates nature's molecular diversity into the next generation of therapeutics for cancer, infectious diseases, and beyond [citation:1][citation:8][citation:10].

References

• 1. Informatics and Computational Methods in Natural Product ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6503039/]
• 2. Current computational methods for predicting protein ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037019301059]
• 3. Exploiting PubChem and other public databases for virtual ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40908921/]
• 4. Deep learning based predictive modeling to screen natural ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11620472/]
• 5. Artificial intelligence for natural product drug discovery and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666521225001206]
• 6. Artificial intelligence in natural products research [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41260783/]
• 7. Deep learning and artificial intelligence for drug discovery ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-025-06991-6]
• 8. InertDB as a generative AI-expanded resource of ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40211375/]
• 9. NGS Library Preparation Automation Market [https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5925147/ngs-library-preparation-automation-market?srsltid=AfmBOorNuIT2Yx8TDhxiK5CEk4L_gu78UNMecCGJqlkd5wd4GRQuziMX]
• 10. DNA Library Preparation Kits Market Outlook 2025 to 2032 [https://www.24lifesciences.com/dna-library-preparation-kits-market-8657]
• 11. Deep learning pipeline for accelerating virtual screening in ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-79799-w]
• 12. Next Generation Sequencing Library Preparation Market ... [https://www.insightaceanalytic.com/report/global-next-generation-sequencing-library-preparation-market/1490]
• 13. Decoding the limits of deep learning in molecular docking for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc05395a]
• 14. DNA Library Preparation Market Forecast Report 2037 [https://www.researchnester.com/reports/dna-library-preparation-market/5319]
• 15. Artificial intelligence for natural product drug discovery - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37697042/]
• 16. Artificial intelligence: Machine learning approach for ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166354223002188]
• 17. Exploring the ability of machine learning-based virtual ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-023-00755-3]
• 18. An artificial intelligence accelerated virtual screening ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52061-7]
• 19. Artificial Intelligence in Natural Product Drug Discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11874025/]
• 20. One size does not fit all: revising traditional paradigms for ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-00948-y]
• 21. Emerging Frontiers in Virtual Drug Discovery: From Quantum ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9990419/]
• 22. Navigating structure-based drug discovery with emerging ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s44386-025-00031-4]
• 23. [2503.17656] NaFM: Pre-training a Foundation Model for Small-Molecule Natural Products [https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.17656]
• 24. NaFM: Pre-training a Foundation Model for Small-Molecule Natural Products [https://arxiv.org/html/2503.17656v1]
• 25. Data Archiving and Access for NaFM: Pre-training a Foundation Model for Small-Molecule Natural Products [https://figshare.com/articles/dataset/Data_Archiving_and_Access_for_NaFM_Pre-training_a_Foundation_Model_for_Small-Molecule_Natural_Products/28980254]
• 26. Natural products in drug discovery: advances and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-00114-z]
• 27. Natural Products as a Foundation for Drug Discovery - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2813068/]
• 28. Revitalizing natural products for sustainable drug Discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352554125001809]
• 29. Deep Learning in Virtual Screening: Recent Applications ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33922714/]
• 30. Deep Learning Promotes the Screening of Natural Products ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9386835/]
• 31. HelixVS: Deep Learning Enhanced Structure-based Virtual ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.10262v1]
• 32. HelixVS: Deep Learning Virtual Screening [https://www.emergentmind.com/topics/helixvs]
• 33. Boltzina: Efficient and Accurate Virtual Screening via ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.17555]
• 34. [Literature Review] Boltzina: Efficient and Accurate Virtual ... [https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/boltzina-efficient-and-accurate-virtual-screening-via-docking-guided-binding-prediction-with-boltz-2]
• 35. Boltzina: Efficient and Accurate Virtual Screening via ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2508.17555v1]
• 36. Boltzina: Efficient and Accurate Virtual Screening via ... [https://www.alphaxiv.org/resources/2508.17555v1]
• 37. Predictive modeling by deep learning, virtual screening and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7484589/]
• 38. Review Artificial intelligence in natural products research [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1875536425609022?dgcid=rss_sd_all]
• 39. Machine learning-based QSAR and structure-based virtual ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40629220/]
• 40. Taking a Cancer Treatment Approach to New Antibiotic ... [https://www.contagionlive.com/view/taking-a-cancer-treatment-approach-to-new-antibiotic-development]
• 41. Applications of Virtual Screening in Bioprospecting [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/chemistry/articles/10.3389/fchem.2021.662688/full]
• 42. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Applications in Drug Discovery and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11510778/]
• 43. Enhancing multifunctional drug screening via artificial ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d5dd00082c]
• 44. Convergence of Computer-Aided Drug Discovery and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2773216925000388]
• 45. Digital Alchemy: The Rise of Machine and Deep Learning in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12295739/]
• 46. Modeling the expansion of virtual screening libraries - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10243288/]
• 47. Assessing Generative Model Coverage of Protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11761634/]
• 48. Investigating whether deep learning models for co-folding ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63947-5]
• 49. Protein representations: Encoding biological information ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734975024001538]
• 50. Interpretability of Machine Learning Methods Applied to ... [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK597495/]
• 51. Evaluating Machine Learning Models against Clinical ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2411.03105]
• 52. Interpretation and Visualization Techniques for Deep Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8236074/]
• 53. The Light and Dark Sides of Virtual Screening [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6470506/]
• 54. Using model explanations to guide deep learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-24356-6]
• 55. Multitarget Natural Compounds for Ischemic Stroke ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40084909/]
• 56. Robust evaluation of deep learning-based representation ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-67023-8]
• 57. Human-in-the-loop active learning for goal-oriented molecule ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00924-y]
• 58. Bayesian active learning-aided structure-based virtual ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41091333/?utm_source=FeedFetcher&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=None&utm_content=1-5bL_puEdEb3CtBnPLr1j4PwEx5qdWj1-6SiUJse9gZmPtEyX&fc=None&ff=20251103123906&v=2.18.0.post22+67771e2]
• 59. Deep learning based predictive modeling to screen natural ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0303954]
• 60. A machine learning-based strategy for screening bioactive ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/nj/d5nj02230d]
• 61. Structure-based machine learning screening identifies ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12265111/]
• 62. Classification: ROC and AUC | Machine Learning | Google for Developers [https://developers.google.com/machine-learning/crash-course/classification/roc-and-auc]
• 63. vSDC: a method to improve early recognition in virtual ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4722699/]
• 64. Guide to AUC ROC Curve in Machine Learning [https://www.analyticsvidhya.com/blog/2020/06/auc-roc-curve-machine-learning/]
• 65. AUCMetric - Deep learning area under ROC curve (AUC) metric - MATLAB [https://www.mathworks.com/help/deeplearning/ref/deep.metric.aucmetric.html]
• 66. Directory of Useful Decoys, Enhanced (DUD-E) [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3405771/]
• 67. MF-PCBA: Multifidelity High-Throughput Screening ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37058588/]
• 68. LIDEB's Useful Decoys (LUDe): A freely available ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667318525000054]
• 69. Hidden bias in the DUD-E dataset leads to misleading ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0220113]
• 70. davidbuterez/mf-pcba [https://github.com/davidbuterez/mf-pcba]
• 71. Structure-based screening of natural product libraries in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8938336/]
• 72. Beyond rigid docking: deep learning approaches for fully ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12406700/]
• 73. Fair Comparisons to Conventional Docking Workflows [https://www.alphaxiv.org/ja/overview/2412.02889v1]
• 74. PayloadGenX, a multi-stage hybrid virtual screening ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1476927125000994]
• 75. Hybrid Virtual Screening Approach to Predict Novel Natural ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39016126/]
• 76. Organic Fusion of Molecular Simulation and Wet-Lab Validation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12385867/]
• 77. Why AI-first platforms need wet-lab validation for drug ... [https://www.linkedin.com/posts/storm3_everyones-generating-molecules-in-silico-activity-7373717307111682050-LiJ2]
• 78. Verification, analytical validation, and clinical validation (V3) [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-020-0260-4]