TEMPL Pipeline icon

TEMPL Pipeline

(v1.0.0)Code (opens in a new tab)Paper (opens in a new tab)Docs

Template-based protein-ligand pose prediction with MCS-guided conformer generation.

Upload file or drag and dropPDB, ENT · up to 50 MB
Upload file or drag and dropSDF · up to 10 MB

Output

Configure inputs to begin

Set options on the left, then click “Submit job”.

What is TEMPL Pipeline?

TEMPL Pipeline predicts protein-ligand binding poses by borrowing geometry from related protein-ligand complexes instead of starting from an unconstrained docking search. It is a template-based method from Jozef Fulop, Martin Sicho, and Wim Dehaen for rapid pose prediction when similar ligands and binding sites are already represented in structural data.

The method is strongest in interpolative settings: close analogs, conserved pockets, lead-optimization series, and targets with useful protein-ligand templates. It is less suitable for novel scaffolds, allosteric pockets with little template coverage, and cases where binding depends on large receptor rearrangements.

How to use TEMPL Pipeline online

A TEMPL Pipeline online run accepts a protein structure as PDB, ENT, or RCSB PDB ID and one organic small-molecule ligand as SMILES, PubChem, drawing, or SDF. ProteinIQ searches for related protein-ligand templates, generates constrained ligand poses, and returns ranked SDF files with shape, color, and combo Tanimoto scores.

Inputs

InputAccepted valuesNotes
Protein.pdb or .ent file, Files library structure, or RCSB PDB IDProtein atoms are required. Structures with nucleic acid atoms may need review before interpretation.
LigandSMILES text, PubChem lookup, structure drawing, or .sdf fileOne covalent organic small molecule is expected. Disconnected salts, query atoms, metals, large peptides, and very complex carbohydrates are rejected or fail validation.
Job nameOptional text labelStored with the run for later job history lookup.

For structures with missing atoms, alternate locations, or unusual residues, PDB Fixer can be used before running pose prediction.

Settings

SettingDefaultDescription
Number of templates100Number of candidate protein-ligand templates to consider. Larger values broaden the search but can introduce less relevant templates.
Similarity thresholdBlankOptional cutoff from 0.0 to 1.0. Leaving it blank keeps top-template selection by rank.
Number of conformers200Number of ligand conformers generated before alignment and scoring. More conformers can help flexible ligands but increases runtime.
Ranking metricCombo TanimotoMetric used to select the ranked conformer. Combo Tanimoto averages shape and pharmacophore agreement; Shape Tanimoto and Color Tanimoto can be used when one signal should dominate.
Skip shape realignmentOffUses the generated conformer without the final shape realignment step. This is mainly useful for diagnostic comparisons.
Enable force-field optimizationOffApplies force-field optimization after pose generation. It may improve local geometry but can also move a pose away from its template constraint.
Unconstrained conformer generationOffDisables MCS-constrained conformer generation. Use only when the shared scaffold constraint is undesirable.
Random seedBlankOptional non-negative integer for reproducible conformer generation and scoring behavior.

Results

OutputDescription
Viewer3D view of the submitted protein with ligand poses overlaid for inspection.
DataPose summary table with rank, metric, shape score, color score, combo score, template PDB ID, and file name.
FilesDownloadable SDF, JSON, and reference structure files.

The main result files are:

FileContents
*_top3_poses.sdfOne top ligand pose for each scoring metric: shape, color, and combo.
*_all_poses.sdfAll ranked ligand poses generated during the run.
*_template.sdfThe selected template ligand used for MCS-guided pose generation.
*_pipeline_results.jsonTemplate, MCS, target, and run metadata.
*_reference.pdbSubmitted protein structure included so the viewer can place ligand-only SDF poses in the target context.

File names may use the selected template PDB ID rather than the submitted target ID. That is expected for TEMPL outputs because the winning template determines the pose file prefix.

How TEMPL Pipeline works

TEMPL is a data-driven baseline for protein-ligand pose prediction. It searches a library of known protein-ligand complexes, identifies suitable templates, transfers ligand geometry into the target frame, and ranks generated poses by 3D similarity.

Template search

The pipeline uses protein embeddings to find structurally related protein-ligand templates. The released TEMPL dataset includes precomputed ESM-2 protein embeddings and processed ligand structures from PDBbind-scale complexes, which makes the search fast enough for interactive use.

Template quality matters more than template count. A close template from the same protein family with a related ligand can be more useful than many weakly related hits.

MCS-guided pose generation

After a template ligand is selected, TEMPL finds the maximal common substructure (MCS) between the submitted ligand and the template ligand. The shared atoms act as geometric anchors, and RDKit ETKDG conformer generation builds candidate 3D ligand conformations around that constraint.

This is why TEMPL is most useful for analog series. If the submitted ligand and template ligand share a clear scaffold, the MCS constraint gives the generated pose a strong geometric prior. If the ligand is a new chemotype with little shared substructure, the constraint becomes weaker or may fall back to less informative alignment.

Shape and pharmacophore scoring

Generated conformers are aligned to the template ligand and scored with RDKit shape alignment:

  • Shape score: Agreement between the 3D molecular volumes.
  • Color score: Pharmacophore-like feature agreement, such as donor, acceptor, aromatic, and hydrophobic feature overlap.
  • Combo score: Average of the shape and color scores.

The top poses are not binding free-energy estimates. They are similarity-ranked hypotheses for where the ligand could sit if the selected template captures the relevant binding mode.

Interpreting results

Higher Tanimoto scores indicate closer agreement with the selected template. Scores near 1.0 suggest strong shape or feature overlap, while values closer to 0 indicate weak agreement. The useful threshold depends on ligand size, scaffold similarity, and whether the template ligand binds the same pocket.

Result fieldInterpretation
RankOrder in the result table for the reported top poses.
MetricScoring criterion used for that top pose: shape, color, or combo.
Shape score3D volume overlap with the selected template ligand. Higher is better.
Color scorePharmacophore feature overlap with the selected template ligand. Higher is better.
Combo scoreMean of shape and color scores. Useful as the default balanced ranking.
Template PDBPDB ID of the protein-ligand complex that supplied the template geometry.
FileSDF file containing the corresponding ligand pose.

Visual inspection is essential. A high-scoring TEMPL pose should still be checked for steric clashes, impossible protonation assumptions, and whether key interactions are plausible in the submitted protein structure. The *_pipeline_results.json file is useful when documenting which template and MCS mapping drove a result.

When to use TEMPL Pipeline vs docking tools

TEMPL is a good first choice when the ligand resembles known binders and the protein has nearby structural templates. It can be faster and more stable than unconstrained docking for analog pose transfer because it starts from experimental geometry.

MethodBest fitMain output
TEMPL PipelineTemplate-rich analog series and fast pose transferSimilarity-ranked ligand pose SDFs
AutoDock VinaGeneral small-molecule docking with an interpretable empirical scoreBinding poses with kcal/mol docking scores
GNINADocking plus CNN pose confidence and affinity-style rescoringCNN-ranked poses and Vina-style scores
DiffDock-LBlind docking or cases without a reliable known pocket templateDiffusion-generated poses with confidence scores
PandaDockPhysics-based protein-ligand docking with affinity-style rankingDocked poses and binding-energy-oriented scores

For a lead series around a known chemotype, TEMPL can quickly test whether new analogs preserve a crystallographic binding mode. For chemically distant ligands or targets without useful templates, AutoDock Vina, GNINA, or DiffDock-L usually provide a better starting point.

Table of contents

Related tools

AutoDock-GPU

AutoDock-GPU

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

AutoDock Vina

AutoDock Vina

Dock ligands into protein structures and estimate binding modes, poses, and affinity scores.

DiffDock-L

DiffDock-L

Predict protein-ligand binding poses and confidence scores without a predefined binding site.

DynamicBind

DynamicBind

Predict protein-ligand binding poses while modeling ligand-induced conformational changes.

FlowDock

FlowDock

Geometric flow matching for generative protein-ligand docking and affinity prediction.

GNINA

GNINA

Dock small molecules into proteins using CNN scoring and physics-based pose optimization.

PandaDock

PandaDock

Physics-based molecular docking with CPU-optimized hierarchical algorithms

SigmaDock

SigmaDock

Fragment-based SE(3) equivariant diffusion docking for protein-ligand binding pose prediction

SMINA

SMINA

Enhanced molecular docking with custom scoring functions and fast minimization

SurfDock

SurfDock

Surface-informed diffusion generative model for reliable and accurate protein-ligand complex prediction