AutoDock-GPU icon

AutoDock-GPU

(1.6)

Dock ligands with AutoDock4 scoring, CUDA acceleration, and flexible receptor sidechains. Learn more

What is AutoDock-GPU?

AutoDock-GPU is a GPU-accelerated implementation of AutoDock4, one of the most widely-cited docking programs in computational drug discovery. It predicts how small molecules bind to protein targets using the classic AutoDock4 physics-based force field, with reported speedups of up to 56x over single-threaded AutoDock4.

The key distinction from AutoDock Vina is the scoring function: AutoDock-GPU uses the original AutoDock4 force field with explicit terms for van der Waals interactions, hydrogen bonding, electrostatics, and desolvation. This physics-inspired approach behaves differently than Vina's empirically-optimized scoring, particularly for metal-containing binding sites and systems with complex electrostatics.

AutoDock-GPU is developed by the Forli Lab at Scripps Research and is open-source under the GPL license.

How does AutoDock-GPU work?

AutoDock-GPU combines pre-calculated grid maps with the Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (LGA) to efficiently search conformational space on GPUs.

The AutoDock4 scoring function

The scoring function estimates binding free energy (ΔG\Delta GΔG) through five physics-based terms:

ΔG=ΔGvdW+ΔGhbond+ΔGelec+ΔGdesolv+ΔGtor\Delta G = \Delta G_{vdW} + \Delta G_{hbond} + \Delta G_{elec} + \Delta G_{desolv} + \Delta G_{tor}ΔG=ΔGvdW​+ΔGhbond​+ΔGelec​+ΔGdesolv​+ΔGtor​

  • Van der Waals (ΔGvdW\Delta G_{vdW}ΔGvdW​): Lennard-Jones 12-6 potential modeling steric interactions
  • Hydrogen bonding (ΔGhbond\Delta G_{hbond}ΔGhbond​): 12-10 potential with a directional term favoring optimal H-bond geometry
  • Electrostatics (ΔGelec\Delta G_{elec}ΔGelec​): Coulombic interactions with a distance-dependent dielectric
  • Desolvation (ΔGdesolv\Delta G_{desolv}ΔGdesolv​): Energy penalty for displacing water from hydrophobic surfaces
  • Torsional entropy (ΔGtor\Delta G_{tor}ΔGtor​): Penalty proportional to rotatable bonds lost upon binding

These interaction energies are pre-calculated by AutoGrid at 0.375 Å resolution and stored as 3D grids. During docking, energies are rapidly looked up via trilinear interpolation rather than computed pairwise—this is what enables ~250 million scoring function evaluations per docking job.

The Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm

The LGA is a hybrid global-local search strategy:

  1. Population initialization: Random poses (position, orientation, torsion angles) are generated
  2. Genetic evolution: New poses are created through crossover and mutation of parent poses
  3. Local refinement: ~6% of the population undergoes local search optimization each generation
  4. Lamarckian inheritance: Improved poses from local search re-enter the population (unlike Darwinian evolution where acquired traits aren't inherited)
  5. Termination: Search stops when maximum evaluations or generations are reached

Multiple independent LGA runs (controlled by Number of LGA runs) explore different regions of conformational space. The best pose across all runs is returned by default, or multiple ranked poses can be requested.

Local search methods

AutoDock-GPU supports five local search optimizers:

ADADELTA (gradient-based): Uses scoring function gradients to descend toward energy minima. Converges faster for flexible ligands (8+ rotatable bonds) and typically requires 6-23x fewer evaluations than Solis-Wets. Recommended for most applications.

Solis-Wets (random): Applies random perturbations to pose variables, accepting improvements probabilistically. Better for small, rigid ligands (≤7 rotatable bonds) where gradient information is less beneficial.

Steepest-Descent, FIRE, and ADAM (gradient-based): Additional native minimizers for controlled comparisons and specialized searches. AutoDock-GPU's ligand-based evaluation heuristics support only ADADELTA and Solis-Wets, so these three methods use the configured maximum evaluation count directly.

GPU parallelization

AutoDock-GPU exploits three levels of parallelism:

  • High-level: Multiple LGA runs execute simultaneously across GPU threads
  • Medium-level: Individuals within a genetic generation are processed in parallel
  • Low-level: Fine-grained tasks (rotation, scoring) are distributed across work-items

This hierarchical approach produced speedups of up to 56x in the published benchmark, depending on the GPU and system size. A single GPU can screen 2,000-40,000 ligands per day.

Grid maps

Grid maps pre-calculate interaction energies between each ligand atom type and the receptor at every point in space. This upfront cost (handled automatically by ProteinIQ via AutoGrid4) enables extremely fast scoring during the docking search—~250 million scoring evaluations per job by looking up cached values rather than computing pairwise interactions. Grid maps are cached per receptor, so docking additional ligands against the same protein reuses existing maps.

How to use AutoDock-GPU online

ProteinIQ handles Meeko preparation, grid map generation, and GPU scheduling automatically—no local installation of AutoDock-GPU, AutoGrid, Meeko, or CUDA toolkits required.

Inputs

InputDescription
Protein (Receptor)PDB file or RCSB PDB ID. The submitted receptor is typed and converted to PDBQT with Meeko without silently rebuilding missing residues or heavy atoms. Repair and review incomplete structures first with PDB Fixer.
LigandSMILES string, SDF, MOL, or PDBQT file. Batch submission supports up to 200 ligands as one per line (SMILES or name<TAB>SMILES). Ligands containing metals are not supported—use GNINA instead.
Flexible ResiduesOptional PDBQT file specifying receptor sidechains that should flex during docking. Allows modeling induced-fit effects at the binding site.
Reference LigandOptional PDBQT, SDF, or MOL ligand used by AutoDock-GPU for RMSD analysis and reference-energy reporting. It is not substituted with a docked ligand when omitted.

Settings

Docking parameters

SettingDescription
Number of LGA runsIndependent genetic algorithm runs (1–100, default 20). More runs explore more conformational space. Use 20 for screening, 50–100 for thorough analysis of lead compounds.
Local search methodADADELTA (default), Solis-Wets, Steepest-Descent, FIRE, or ADAM. Native evaluation heuristics apply only to ADADELTA and Solis-Wets.

Advanced settings

SettingDescription
Max evaluations per runScoring function evaluations per LGA run (100,000–25,000,000, default 2,500,000). ADADELTA and Solis-Wets use the native ligand-based heuristic by default, with a smooth 12-million-evaluation cap; another value limits that heuristic. Steepest-Descent, FIRE, and ADAM use the configured value directly.
Random seedSeed for reproducibility. 0 (default) uses a random seed each run; any other value produces deterministic results.
Grid spacingResolution of energy maps in Angstroms (0.1–1.0, default 0.375). Smaller values increase accuracy but require more memory.
Best pose onlyWhen enabled (default), returns only the top-scoring pose per ligand. Disable to output multiple ranked poses from independent LGA runs.
Number of posesPoses to return per ligand (1–20, default 5). Only active when Best pose only is disabled.
Configure search spaceWhen enabled, allows manual specification of the binding site location. By default, the entire protein surface is searched (blind docking).
Search modeAuto searches the entire protein using the receptor bounding-box midpoint and even grid dimensions. Manual accepts center coordinates (X, Y, Z) and even grid-point counts from 20 to 126 per axis. A focused search box reduces runtime and often improves results for known binding sites.

Results

Results include a ranking.csv ranking compounds by best predicted affinity (most negative first), complete torsion-aware PDBQT pose files, the Meeko-prepared receptor and ligands, the AutoGrid parameter file, raw DLG/XML records, and pinned runtime provenance. When multiple poses are requested, each ligand's top N poses are returned ranked by binding energy. Optional --npdb files represent poses from the final LGA populations; they are not cluster representatives.

Understanding the results

Binding affinity interpretation

AutoDock-GPU reports binding affinity in kcal/mol. More negative values indicate stronger predicted binding:

RangeInterpretation
-4 to -6Weak binding
-6 to -8Moderate binding
-8 to -10Strong binding
< -10Very strong binding

AutoDock4 and Vina scoring functions are calibrated differently—affinities should not be compared directly between the two programs. Scores below -12 kcal/mol may be scoring artifacts rather than true predictions, particularly for ligands with many rotatable bonds or poses with unphysical geometry. Visual inspection of such poses in the 3D viewer is recommended.

Limitations

  • AutoDock-GPU handles molecules up to about 32 rotatable bonds effectively. For larger peptides or macrocyclic compounds, the search space becomes too large for the LGA to explore adequately. DiffDock handles flexibility differently and may be more suitable.
  • AutoDock-GPU v1.6 has fixed limits of 256 combined ligand and flexible-residue atoms, 32 ligand-system atom types, and 57 combined ligand and flexible-residue rotatable bonds. ProteinIQ applies the stricter 32-rotatable-bond product limit to each ligand before docking.
  • The protein backbone remains rigid during docking. Sidechain flexibility can be modeled by providing a flexible residues PDBQT file, but large-scale conformational changes are not captured.
  • AutoDock-GPU's atom type parameterization does not cover metal coordination in ligands. For metalloligands, use GNINA.

When to use AutoDock-GPU vs alternatives

ScenarioRecommended tool
General-purpose dockingAutoDock Vina
Need AutoDock4 force fieldAutoDock-GPU
Metalloproteins (Zn, Fe, heme)AutoDock-GPU or GNINA
Unknown binding siteDiffDock
Pose accuracy priorityGNINA
High-throughput screeningAutoDock-GPU
Reproducing legacy AD4 resultsAutoDock-GPU

AutoDock-GPU is the best choice when AutoDock4 scoring is specifically needed (e.g., for consistency with published results) or when screening large compound libraries where GPU acceleration provides the biggest advantage. For individual dockings, runtime is comparable to Vina (1–5 minutes). The speed advantage emerges in batch screening: once grid maps are generated for a receptor, subsequent ligands dock very quickly, enabling 2,000–40,000 compounds per day per GPU.

Comparison to other docking tools

FeatureAutoDock-GPUAutoDock VinaGNINADiffDock
ScoringAutoDock4 force fieldVina/Vinardo/AD4CNN + VinaConfidence score
SearchLamarckian GABFGS + randomBFGS + randomDiffusion model
SpeedVery fast (GPU)Fast (CPU)Moderate (GPU)Slower (GPU)
Grid mapsPre-computed (AutoGrid)On-the-flyOn-the-flyNone
Best forAD4 scoring, HTSGeneral usePose accuracyBlind docking

Table of contents

AutoDock-GPU icon

AutoDock-GPU

(1.6)

Dock ligands with AutoDock4 scoring, CUDA acceleration, and flexible receptor sidechains. Learn more

What is AutoDock-GPU?

AutoDock-GPU is a GPU-accelerated implementation of AutoDock4, one of the most widely-cited docking programs in computational drug discovery. It predicts how small molecules bind to protein targets using the classic AutoDock4 physics-based force field, with reported speedups of up to 56x over single-threaded AutoDock4.

The key distinction from AutoDock Vina is the scoring function: AutoDock-GPU uses the original AutoDock4 force field with explicit terms for van der Waals interactions, hydrogen bonding, electrostatics, and desolvation. This physics-inspired approach behaves differently than Vina's empirically-optimized scoring, particularly for metal-containing binding sites and systems with complex electrostatics.

AutoDock-GPU is developed by the Forli Lab at Scripps Research and is open-source under the GPL license.

How does AutoDock-GPU work?

AutoDock-GPU combines pre-calculated grid maps with the Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm (LGA) to efficiently search conformational space on GPUs.

The AutoDock4 scoring function

The scoring function estimates binding free energy (ΔG\Delta GΔG) through five physics-based terms:

ΔG=ΔGvdW+ΔGhbond+ΔGelec+ΔGdesolv+ΔGtor\Delta G = \Delta G_{vdW} + \Delta G_{hbond} + \Delta G_{elec} + \Delta G_{desolv} + \Delta G_{tor}ΔG=ΔGvdW​+ΔGhbond​+ΔGelec​+ΔGdesolv​+ΔGtor​

  • Van der Waals (ΔGvdW\Delta G_{vdW}ΔGvdW​): Lennard-Jones 12-6 potential modeling steric interactions
  • Hydrogen bonding (ΔGhbond\Delta G_{hbond}ΔGhbond​): 12-10 potential with a directional term favoring optimal H-bond geometry
  • Electrostatics (ΔGelec\Delta G_{elec}ΔGelec​): Coulombic interactions with a distance-dependent dielectric
  • Desolvation (ΔGdesolv\Delta G_{desolv}ΔGdesolv​): Energy penalty for displacing water from hydrophobic surfaces
  • Torsional entropy (ΔGtor\Delta G_{tor}ΔGtor​): Penalty proportional to rotatable bonds lost upon binding

These interaction energies are pre-calculated by AutoGrid at 0.375 Å resolution and stored as 3D grids. During docking, energies are rapidly looked up via trilinear interpolation rather than computed pairwise—this is what enables ~250 million scoring function evaluations per docking job.

The Lamarckian Genetic Algorithm

The LGA is a hybrid global-local search strategy:

  1. Population initialization: Random poses (position, orientation, torsion angles) are generated
  2. Genetic evolution: New poses are created through crossover and mutation of parent poses
  3. Local refinement: ~6% of the population undergoes local search optimization each generation
  4. Lamarckian inheritance: Improved poses from local search re-enter the population (unlike Darwinian evolution where acquired traits aren't inherited)
  5. Termination: Search stops when maximum evaluations or generations are reached

Multiple independent LGA runs (controlled by Number of LGA runs) explore different regions of conformational space. The best pose across all runs is returned by default, or multiple ranked poses can be requested.

Local search methods

AutoDock-GPU supports five local search optimizers:

ADADELTA (gradient-based): Uses scoring function gradients to descend toward energy minima. Converges faster for flexible ligands (8+ rotatable bonds) and typically requires 6-23x fewer evaluations than Solis-Wets. Recommended for most applications.

Solis-Wets (random): Applies random perturbations to pose variables, accepting improvements probabilistically. Better for small, rigid ligands (≤7 rotatable bonds) where gradient information is less beneficial.

Steepest-Descent, FIRE, and ADAM (gradient-based): Additional native minimizers for controlled comparisons and specialized searches. AutoDock-GPU's ligand-based evaluation heuristics support only ADADELTA and Solis-Wets, so these three methods use the configured maximum evaluation count directly.

GPU parallelization

AutoDock-GPU exploits three levels of parallelism:

  • High-level: Multiple LGA runs execute simultaneously across GPU threads
  • Medium-level: Individuals within a genetic generation are processed in parallel
  • Low-level: Fine-grained tasks (rotation, scoring) are distributed across work-items

This hierarchical approach produced speedups of up to 56x in the published benchmark, depending on the GPU and system size. A single GPU can screen 2,000-40,000 ligands per day.

Grid maps

Grid maps pre-calculate interaction energies between each ligand atom type and the receptor at every point in space. This upfront cost (handled automatically by ProteinIQ via AutoGrid4) enables extremely fast scoring during the docking search—~250 million scoring evaluations per job by looking up cached values rather than computing pairwise interactions. Grid maps are cached per receptor, so docking additional ligands against the same protein reuses existing maps.

How to use AutoDock-GPU online

ProteinIQ handles Meeko preparation, grid map generation, and GPU scheduling automatically—no local installation of AutoDock-GPU, AutoGrid, Meeko, or CUDA toolkits required.

Inputs

InputDescription
Protein (Receptor)PDB file or RCSB PDB ID. The submitted receptor is typed and converted to PDBQT with Meeko without silently rebuilding missing residues or heavy atoms. Repair and review incomplete structures first with PDB Fixer.
LigandSMILES string, SDF, MOL, or PDBQT file. Batch submission supports up to 200 ligands as one per line (SMILES or name<TAB>SMILES). Ligands containing metals are not supported—use GNINA instead.
Flexible ResiduesOptional PDBQT file specifying receptor sidechains that should flex during docking. Allows modeling induced-fit effects at the binding site.
Reference LigandOptional PDBQT, SDF, or MOL ligand used by AutoDock-GPU for RMSD analysis and reference-energy reporting. It is not substituted with a docked ligand when omitted.

Settings

Docking parameters

SettingDescription
Number of LGA runsIndependent genetic algorithm runs (1–100, default 20). More runs explore more conformational space. Use 20 for screening, 50–100 for thorough analysis of lead compounds.
Local search methodADADELTA (default), Solis-Wets, Steepest-Descent, FIRE, or ADAM. Native evaluation heuristics apply only to ADADELTA and Solis-Wets.

Advanced settings

SettingDescription
Max evaluations per runScoring function evaluations per LGA run (100,000–25,000,000, default 2,500,000). ADADELTA and Solis-Wets use the native ligand-based heuristic by default, with a smooth 12-million-evaluation cap; another value limits that heuristic. Steepest-Descent, FIRE, and ADAM use the configured value directly.
Random seedSeed for reproducibility. 0 (default) uses a random seed each run; any other value produces deterministic results.
Grid spacingResolution of energy maps in Angstroms (0.1–1.0, default 0.375). Smaller values increase accuracy but require more memory.
Best pose onlyWhen enabled (default), returns only the top-scoring pose per ligand. Disable to output multiple ranked poses from independent LGA runs.
Number of posesPoses to return per ligand (1–20, default 5). Only active when Best pose only is disabled.
Configure search spaceWhen enabled, allows manual specification of the binding site location. By default, the entire protein surface is searched (blind docking).
Search modeAuto searches the entire protein using the receptor bounding-box midpoint and even grid dimensions. Manual accepts center coordinates (X, Y, Z) and even grid-point counts from 20 to 126 per axis. A focused search box reduces runtime and often improves results for known binding sites.

Results

Results include a ranking.csv ranking compounds by best predicted affinity (most negative first), complete torsion-aware PDBQT pose files, the Meeko-prepared receptor and ligands, the AutoGrid parameter file, raw DLG/XML records, and pinned runtime provenance. When multiple poses are requested, each ligand's top N poses are returned ranked by binding energy. Optional --npdb files represent poses from the final LGA populations; they are not cluster representatives.

Understanding the results

Binding affinity interpretation

AutoDock-GPU reports binding affinity in kcal/mol. More negative values indicate stronger predicted binding:

RangeInterpretation
-4 to -6Weak binding
-6 to -8Moderate binding
-8 to -10Strong binding
< -10Very strong binding

AutoDock4 and Vina scoring functions are calibrated differently—affinities should not be compared directly between the two programs. Scores below -12 kcal/mol may be scoring artifacts rather than true predictions, particularly for ligands with many rotatable bonds or poses with unphysical geometry. Visual inspection of such poses in the 3D viewer is recommended.

Limitations

  • AutoDock-GPU handles molecules up to about 32 rotatable bonds effectively. For larger peptides or macrocyclic compounds, the search space becomes too large for the LGA to explore adequately. DiffDock handles flexibility differently and may be more suitable.
  • AutoDock-GPU v1.6 has fixed limits of 256 combined ligand and flexible-residue atoms, 32 ligand-system atom types, and 57 combined ligand and flexible-residue rotatable bonds. ProteinIQ applies the stricter 32-rotatable-bond product limit to each ligand before docking.
  • The protein backbone remains rigid during docking. Sidechain flexibility can be modeled by providing a flexible residues PDBQT file, but large-scale conformational changes are not captured.
  • AutoDock-GPU's atom type parameterization does not cover metal coordination in ligands. For metalloligands, use GNINA.

When to use AutoDock-GPU vs alternatives

ScenarioRecommended tool
General-purpose dockingAutoDock Vina
Need AutoDock4 force fieldAutoDock-GPU
Metalloproteins (Zn, Fe, heme)AutoDock-GPU or GNINA
Unknown binding siteDiffDock
Pose accuracy priorityGNINA
High-throughput screeningAutoDock-GPU
Reproducing legacy AD4 resultsAutoDock-GPU

AutoDock-GPU is the best choice when AutoDock4 scoring is specifically needed (e.g., for consistency with published results) or when screening large compound libraries where GPU acceleration provides the biggest advantage. For individual dockings, runtime is comparable to Vina (1–5 minutes). The speed advantage emerges in batch screening: once grid maps are generated for a receptor, subsequent ligands dock very quickly, enabling 2,000–40,000 compounds per day per GPU.

Comparison to other docking tools

FeatureAutoDock-GPUAutoDock VinaGNINADiffDock
ScoringAutoDock4 force fieldVina/Vinardo/AD4CNN + VinaConfidence score
SearchLamarckian GABFGS + randomBFGS + randomDiffusion model
SpeedVery fast (GPU)Fast (CPU)Moderate (GPU)Slower (GPU)
Grid mapsPre-computed (AutoGrid)On-the-flyOn-the-flyNone
Best forAD4 scoring, HTSGeneral usePose accuracyBlind docking

Table of contents

Related tools

PandaDock

PandaDock

Open-source molecular docking platform using physics-based scoring functions. CPU-optimized algorithms achieve sub-angstrom accuracy (0.014A RMSD) without GPU requirements.

protein-dockingaffinity-prediction+5
SMINA

SMINA

SMINA is a fork of AutoDock Vina with enhanced scoring functions, custom scoring support, and 10-20x faster minimization. Ideal for scoring function development, pose refinement, and high-performance docking workflows.

protein-dockingaffinity-prediction+5
AutoDock Vina

AutoDock Vina

AutoDock Vina predicts protein-ligand binding modes with Vina, Vinardo, or AutoDock4 scoring and returns ranked poses with energy estimates.

protein-dockingaffinity-prediction+3
FlowDock

FlowDock

FlowDock predicts protein-ligand complex structures and binding-affinity scores using geometric flow matching.

protein-dockingstructure-prediction+5
GNINA

GNINA

GNINA is a molecular docking tool that combines traditional physics-based docking with deep learning CNN scoring for protein-small-molecule complexes. It provides accurate binding predictions with confidence scores, optimized for high-throughput virtual screening.

protein-dockingaffinity-prediction+4
DiffDock-L

DiffDock-L

DiffDock-L is a state-of-the-art molecular docking tool that uses diffusion models to predict how small molecule ligands bind to protein targets. It generates multiple binding poses with confidence scores.

protein-dockingblind-docking+5
DynamicBind

DynamicBind

DynamicBind is an AI-powered protein-ligand binding prediction tool that recovers ligand-induced conformational changes from unbound protein structures. It predicts both ligand binding poses and protein conformational changes.

protein-dockingblind-docking+5
SigmaDock

SigmaDock

SigmaDock is a fragment-based molecular docking tool using SE(3) equivariant diffusion models to predict how small molecule ligands bind to protein targets. Presented at ICLR 2026, it generates multiple binding poses with Vinardo scoring.

protein-dockingdiffusion-model+5
SurfDock

SurfDock

SurfDock is a surface-informed diffusion generative model for protein-ligand docking, published in Nature Methods 2024. It leverages protein surface geometry to guide a diffusion process for reliable and accurate protein-ligand complex prediction.

protein-dockingstructure-prediction+5
TEMPL Pipeline

TEMPL Pipeline

TEMPL Pipeline predicts protein-ligand poses by finding similar protein templates, aligning template ligands, generating constrained conformers, and ranking poses with shape and pharmacophore scores.

protein-dockingempirical+4