Related tools

AutoDock Vina
AutoDock Vina is a widely-used molecular docking tool that predicts protein-ligand binding modes using physics-based force fields. Fast, reliable, and the gold standard for structure-based drug discovery.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

HADDOCK3
HADDOCK (High Ambiguity Driven protein-protein DOCKing) is an integrative modeling platform for biomolecular complexes. It uses experimental data and bioinformatic predictions to guide the docking process, generating accurate protein-protein complex structures.

LightDock
LightDock is a protein-protein, protein-peptide, and protein-DNA docking framework using Glowworm Swarm Optimization (GSO). It predicts macromolecular binding modes and interfaces for biological complexes.
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, but runs up to 350x faster than single-threaded AutoDock4 by leveraging NVIDIA GPU parallelization.
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 () through five physics-based terms:
- Van der Waals (): Lennard-Jones 12-6 potential modeling steric interactions
- Hydrogen bonding (): 12-10 potential with a directional term favoring optimal H-bond geometry
- Electrostatics (): Coulombic interactions with a distance-dependent dielectric
- Desolvation (): Energy penalty for displacing water from hydrophobic surfaces
- Torsional entropy (): 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:
- Population initialization: Random poses (position, orientation, torsion angles) are generated
- Genetic evolution: New poses are created through crossover and mutation of parent poses
- Local refinement: ~6% of the population undergoes local search optimization each generation
- Lamarckian inheritance: Improved poses from local search re-enter the population (unlike Darwinian evolution where acquired traits aren't inherited)
- 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 offers two 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.
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 achieves 30-350x speedup 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 grid map generation, file format conversion, and GPU scheduling automatically—no local installation of AutoDock-GPU, AutoGrid, or CUDA toolkits required.
Inputs
| Input | Description |
|---|---|
Protein (Receptor) | PDB file or RCSB PDB ID. Hydrogens are added automatically via PDBFixer. For best results, first use PDB Fixer to repair missing residues. |
Ligand | SMILES 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 Residues | Optional PDBQT file specifying receptor sidechains that should flex during docking. Allows modeling induced-fit effects at the binding site. |
Settings
Docking parameters
| Setting | Description |
|---|---|
Number of LGA runs | Independent 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 method | ADADELTA (default, gradient-based) or Solis-Wets (random). ADADELTA converges faster for flexible ligands; Solis-Wets reproduces classic AutoDock4 behavior. |
Advanced settings
| Setting | Description |
|---|---|
Max evaluations per run | Scoring function evaluations per LGA run (100,000–25,000,000, default 2,500,000). By default, AutoDock-GPU uses built-in heuristics to calculate the optimal number based on ligand flexibility and grid size. Only override this when a specific evaluation count is needed. |
Random seed | Seed for reproducibility. 0 (default) uses a random seed each run; any other value produces deterministic results. |
Grid spacing | Resolution of energy maps in Angstroms (0.1–1.0, default 0.375). Smaller values increase accuracy but require more memory. |
Best pose only | When enabled (default), returns only the top-scoring pose per ligand. Disable to output multiple ranked poses from independent LGA runs. |
Number of poses | Poses to return per ligand (1–20, default 5). Only active when Best pose only is disabled. |
Configure search space | When enabled, allows manual specification of the binding site location. By default, the entire protein surface is searched (blind docking). |
Search mode | Auto searches the entire protein. Manual accepts center coordinates (X, Y, Z) and grid dimensions (grid points per axis, max 126). 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), plus PDBQT pose files for 3D visualization and download. When multiple poses are requested, each ligand's top N poses are returned ranked by binding energy.
Understanding the results
Binding affinity interpretation
AutoDock-GPU reports binding affinity in kcal/mol. More negative values indicate stronger predicted binding:
| Range | Interpretation |
|---|---|
| -4 to -6 | Weak binding |
| -6 to -8 | Moderate binding |
| -8 to -10 | Strong binding |
| < -10 | Very 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.
- 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
| Scenario | Recommended tool |
|---|---|
| General-purpose docking | AutoDock Vina |
| Need AutoDock4 force field | AutoDock-GPU |
| Metalloproteins (Zn, Fe, heme) | AutoDock-GPU or GNINA |
| Unknown binding site | DiffDock |
| Pose accuracy priority | GNINA |
| High-throughput screening | AutoDock-GPU |
| Reproducing legacy AD4 results | AutoDock-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
| Feature | AutoDock-GPU | AutoDock Vina | GNINA | DiffDock |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scoring | AutoDock4 force field | Vina/Vinardo/AD4 | CNN + Vina | Confidence score |
| Search | Lamarckian GA | BFGS + random | BFGS + random | Diffusion model |
| Speed | Very fast (GPU) | Fast (CPU) | Moderate (GPU) | Slower (GPU) |
| Grid maps | Pre-computed (AutoGrid) | On-the-fly | On-the-fly | None |
| Best for | AD4 scoring, HTS | General use | Pose accuracy | Blind docking |