journal article·2026-07Open access

Revisiting Target‐Aware de novo Molecular Generation with TarPass: Between Rational Design and Texas Sharpshooter

Rui Qin, Zijie Chen, Yurong Li, Meijing Fang, Longji Shen, Yilong Su, Odin Zhang, Qinghan Wang, Qun Su, Jike Wang, Tingjun Hou, Yu Kang

Advanced Science· Volume 13· Issue 40

Abstract

ABSTRACT Target‐aware molecular generation models hold promise for drug discovery, but it remains unclear whether they genuinely exploit target information or merely resemble the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy by retrospectively rationalizing outputs. To address this, we introduce TarPass, a benchmark comprising a curated dataset of 18 well‐studied targets with expert‐annotated key interactions and experimentally validated active compounds, enabling fair evaluation of target‐aware de novo molecular generation models. We assessed 15 representative models across three paradigms: non‐3D, 3D in situ, and optimization‐based, considering protein‐ligand interactions (PLIs), molecular plausibility, and drug‐likeness. Results show that 3D in situ models have a modest average advantage in predicted PLIs. However, many fail to outperform random sampling. Non‐3D models, benefiting from broader pretraining, generate more drug‐like and synthesizable molecules but exhibit weaker target specificity. Optimization‐based methods effectively redirect outputs toward favorable chemical regions for single properties, often at the expense of others, for example by reducing compliance with Lipinski's rules. Integrating these insights, we propose a multi‐tier virtual screening workflow for target‐aware molecular generation as a post‐processing strategy to enrich molecules with improved PLIs and plausibility. Overall, this study highlights the limitations of current models in capturing fine‐grained target‐specific constraints and provides a standardized framework for future structure‐based drug design.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Computational Drug Discovery Methods · Protein Structure and Dynamics · Protein Degradation and Inhibitors

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

College of Pharmaceutical Sciences Zhejiang University Hangzhou Zhejiang China

Zhejiang Provincial Key Laboratory for Intelligent Drug Discovery and Development Jinhua Zhejiang China

College of Computer Science and Technology Zhejiang University Hangzhou Zhejiang China

College of Pharmacy Guilin Medical University Guilin Guangxi China

Department of Computer Science & Engineering The Chinese University of Hong Kong Hong Kong China

Funding

National Key Research and Development Program of China · National Natural Science Foundation of China

References (81)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1021/acscentsci.7b0057210.1021/acscentsci.7b00572 ↗
2. 10.1038/s43588‐024‐00737‐x10.1038/s43588‐024‐00737‐x ↗
3. J.Guan W. W.Qian X.Peng Y.Su J.Peng andJ.Ma “3D Equivariant Diffusion for Target‐Aware Molecule Generation and Affinity Prediction ”The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations OpenReview.net(2023).
4. A.Schneuing I.Igashov A. W.Dobbelstein T.Castiglione M. M.Bronstein andB.Correia “Multi‐Domain Distribution Learning for De Novo Drug Design ”The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations OpenReview.net(2025).
5. 10.1038/s43588‐023‐00530‐210.1038/s43588‐023‐00530‐2 ↗
6. C.Harris K.Didi A. R.Jamasb et al. “Benchmarking Generated Poses: How Rational Is Structure‐Based Drug Design With Generative Models? ”arXiv:2308.07413(2023).
7. 10.1038/s41587‐019‐0224‐x10.1038/s41587‐019‐0224‐x ↗
8. 10.1038/s41467‐024‐53632‐410.1038/s41467‐024‐53632‐4 ↗
9. R.Karczewski S.Kaski M.Heinonen andV. K.Garg “What Ails Generative Structure‐Based Drug Design: Expressivity Is Too Little or Too Much? ”International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics PMLR(2025).
10. 10.1038/s43588‐024‐00718‐010.1038/s43588‐024‐00718‐0 ↗
11. 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b0083910.1021/acs.jcim.8b00839 ↗
12. 10.1186/s13321‐017‐0235‐x10.1186/s13321‐017‐0235‐x ↗
13. 10.1186/s13321‐024‐00812‐510.1186/s13321‐024‐00812‐5 ↗
14. 10.1186/s13321-025-01108-y10.1186/s13321-025-01108-y ↗
15. 10.1038/s41573‐019‐0050‐310.1038/s41573‐019‐0050‐3 ↗
16. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c0223210.1021/acs.jcim.4c02232 ↗
17. H.Lin G.Zhao O.Zhang et al. “CBGBench: Fill in the Blank of Protein‐Molecule Complex Binding Graph ”The Thirteenth International Conference on Learning Representations OpenReview.net(2025).
18. 10.3389/fphar.2020.56564410.3389/fphar.2020.565644 ↗
19. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c0102010.1021/acs.jcim.5c01020 ↗
20. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c0159810.1021/acs.jcim.4c01598 ↗
21. 10.1039/D4DD00076E10.1039/D4DD00076E ↗
22. K.Zheng Y.Lu Z.ZHANG Z.Wan Y.Ma andM.Zitnik “Structure‐Based Drug Design Benchmark: Do 3D Methods Really Dominate? ”ICML 2024 AI for Science Workshop PMLR(2024).
23. 10.1038/s41467‐024‐47613‐w10.1038/s41467‐024‐47613‐w ↗
24. Z.Huang L.Yang X.Zhou et al. “Protein‐Ligand Interaction Prior for Binding‐Aware 3d Molecule Diffusion Models ”The Twelfth International Conference on Learning Representations OpenReview.net(2024).
25. 10.1038/s42256‐023‐00775‐610.1038/s42256‐023‐00775‐6 ↗
26. Y.Qu K.Qiu Y.Song et al. “MolCRAFT: Structure‐Based Drug Design in Continuous Parameter Space ”International Conference on Machine Learning PMLR(2024).
27. 10.1038/s42256‐024‐00808‐810.1038/s42256‐024‐00808‐8 ↗
28. K.Qiu Y.Song Z.Fan et al. “Piloting Structure‐Based Drug Design via Modality‐Specific Optimal Schedule ”Forty‐Second International Conference on Machine Learning PMLR(2025).
29. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c0064110.1021/acs.jcim.5c00641 ↗
30. 10.1021/acs.jcim.0c0041110.1021/acs.jcim.0c00411 ↗
31. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu62610.1093/bioinformatics/btu626 ↗
32. 10.1038/nbt.398810.1038/nbt.3988 ↗
33. 10.1038/s41587‐023‐01773‐010.1038/s41587‐023‐01773‐0 ↗
34. 10.1093/nar/gkaf36110.1093/nar/gkaf361 ↗
35. 10.1093/nar/gkae107510.1093/nar/gkae1075 ↗
36. Visualizing Data Using T‐SNE
37. 10.1093/nar/gkad100410.1093/nar/gkad1004 ↗
38. 10.1021/ci050407t10.1021/ci050407t ↗
39. 10.1039/D3SC04185A10.1039/D3SC04185A ↗
40. 10.1002/prot.2153610.1002/prot.21536 ↗
41. 10.26434/chemrxiv.8100203.v110.26434/chemrxiv.8100203.v1 ↗
42. 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c0153510.1021/acs.jcim.1c01535 ↗
43. 10.1039/D4SC04620J10.1039/D4SC04620J ↗
44. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c0047310.1021/acs.jmedchem.2c00473 ↗
45. 10.1038/nchem.124310.1038/nchem.1243 ↗
46. 10.1016/S0169‐409X(96)00423‐110.1016/S0169‐409X(96)00423‐1 ↗
47. 10.1186/1758‐2946‐1‐810.1186/1758‐2946‐1‐8 ↗
48. 10.1021/jm901137j10.1021/jm901137j ↗
49. 10.1021/ci300245q10.1021/ci300245q ↗
50. 10.1021/ci990423o10.1021/ci990423o ↗
51. Y.Xie Z.Xu J.Ma andQ.Mei “How Much Space Has Been Explored? Measuring the Chemical Space Covered by Databases and Machine‐Generated Molecules ”11th International Conference on Learning Representations OpenReview.net(2023).
52. 10.1186/s13321‐015‐0069‐310.1186/s13321‐015‐0069‐3 ↗
53. 10.1021/acs.jcim.8b0023410.1021/acs.jcim.8b00234 ↗
54. 10.1090/S0002-9939-07-09020-X10.1090/S0002-9939-07-09020-X ↗
55. 10.34133/research.074710.34133/research.0747 ↗
56. 10.1038/s42256‐025‐01095‐710.1038/s42256‐025‐01095‐7 ↗
57. 10.1038/s41467‐024‐46569‐110.1038/s41467‐024‐46569‐1 ↗
58. 10.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c0009310.1021/acsmedchemlett.4c00093 ↗
59. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c0092110.1021/acs.jcim.5c00921 ↗
60. 10.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b0044310.1021/acs.jmedchem.9b00443 ↗
61. 10.1093/nar/gkae109110.1093/nar/gkae1091 ↗
62. 10.1126/science.adn635410.1126/science.adn6354 ↗
63. 10.1016/j.cell.2012.02.01310.1016/j.cell.2012.02.013 ↗
64. 10.1093/nar/gkad91510.1093/nar/gkad915 ↗
65. 10.1002/anie.20191452510.1002/anie.201914525 ↗
66. 10.1021/ct100578z10.1021/ct100578z ↗
67. 10.1093/nar/gkab92010.1093/nar/gkab920 ↗
68. G.Landrum P.Tosco B.Kelley et al. rdkit/rdkit: 2025_03_1 (Q1 2025) beta Release Zenodo2025.
69. 10.1186/1758‐2946‐3‐3310.1186/1758‐2946‐3‐33 ↗
70. 10.1021/acs.jcim.5b0065410.1021/acs.jcim.5b00654 ↗
71. 10.1021/acs.jcim.3c0124510.1021/acs.jcim.3c01245 ↗
72. 10.1186/1752‐153X‐2‐510.1186/1752‐153X‐2‐5 ↗
73. 10.1002/(SICI)1096‐987X(199604)17:5/6<490::AID‐JCC1>3.0.CO;2‐P10.1002/(SICI)1096‐987X(199604)17:5/6<490::AID‐JCC1>3.0.CO;2‐P ↗
74. 10.1186/s13321‐025‐00973‐x10.1186/s13321‐025‐00973‐x ↗
75. 10.1016/j.drudis.2020.07.01710.1016/j.drudis.2020.07.017 ↗
76. 10.1021/ja00402a07110.1021/ja00402a071 ↗
77. J.Romano J. D.Kromrey J.Coraggio andJ.Skowronek Appropriate Statistics for Ordinal Level Data: Should We Really be Using t‐Test and Cohen'sd for Evaluating Group Differences on the NSSE and Other Surveys? In annual meeting of the Florida Association of Institutional Research (2006).
78. 10.1038/s41592‐019‐0686‐210.1038/s41592‐019‐0686‐2 ↗
79. 10.25080/Majora‐92bf1922‐01110.25080/Majora‐92bf1922‐011 ↗
80. 10.21105/joss.0116910.21105/joss.01169 ↗
81. 10.1016/j.phrs.2024.10705910.1016/j.phrs.2024.107059 ↗