Active Learning in De Novo Drug Design: Accelerating Discovery with Intelligent Workflows

Abstract

This article explores the transformative role of active learning (AL) in de novo drug design, a computational approach for generating novel therapeutic molecules from scratch. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it covers foundational concepts, detailing how AL iteratively selects the most informative compounds for evaluation to maximize efficiency. The piece delves into advanced methodological frameworks—including generative AI integration, human-in-the-loop systems, and structure-based applications—and provides practical strategies for troubleshooting common challenges like scoring function design and data scarcity. Finally, it examines real-world validation case studies and performance comparisons, showcasing how AL-driven workflows successfully generate diverse, synthesizable, and potent drug candidates for targets like CDK2, KRAS, and SARS-CoV-2 Mpro, thereby reshaping the modern drug discovery pipeline.

The Foundations of Active Learning in Drug Design: Core Concepts and Strategic Advantages

The process of de novo drug design has undergone a fundamental transformation, moving away from resource-intensive brute-force screening towards intelligent, iterative learning systems. Traditional methods relied on the high-throughput experimental or computational screening of vast molecular libraries, a process that is both time-consuming and costly, often exploring less than 1% of the relevant chemical space efficiently [1] [2]. The new paradigm is defined by the integration of active learning (AL)—a machine learning (ML) subfield—which employs iterative, data-driven feedback loops to guide the exploration of chemical space. This approach allows computational models to selectively propose the most informative compounds for evaluation, dramatically accelerating the identification of novel bioactive molecules [3] [4].

This shift directly addresses core challenges in drug discovery: the vastness of drug-like chemical space (estimated at ~10^33 synthesizable structures) [5] and the complex, often discontinuous nature of structure-activity relationships (SARs) [5]. By framing de novo design as a combinatorial optimization problem, active learning systems efficiently navigate this space, balancing exploration with the exploitation of promising molecular regions [4].

Core Principles of Active Learning in De Novo Design

Active learning frameworks in drug discovery are characterized by a cyclical process of hypothesis, evaluation, and learning. The core principle involves training a machine learning model on an initial set of molecules evaluated with an "oracle"—a computational or experimental function that scores molecules based on a desired property like binding affinity. The trained model then predicts scores for a much larger, unscreened library. Crucially, an "acquisition function" selects the next batch of compounds for evaluation by the oracle, not merely based on the highest predicted score, but also on criteria such as model uncertainty or chemical diversity. This new data is then used to retrain and improve the model, closing the loop and initiating the next cycle [3] [6] [4].

This iterative process provides several key advantages:

• Efficiency: It enables the discovery of potent compounds by evaluating only a small fraction (e.g., 0.1%) of an ultra-large library, recovering approximately 70% of the top-scoring hits found by exhaustive docking at a fraction of the cost [6].
• Handling Complex Landscapes: Advanced AL frameworks can explicitly model challenging pharmacological phenomena like "activity cliffs," where minor structural changes cause significant leaps in biological activity, which are often missed by conventional models [5].
• Multi-objective Optimization: AL cycles can integrate multiple oracles simultaneously, allowing for the concurrent optimization of affinity, synthesizability, and other drug-like properties [4].

Experimental Protocols & Application Notes

The following section details specific methodologies and protocols for implementing active learning in drug design, providing a practical guide for researchers.

Protocol 1: Active Learning-Driven Hit Expansion with FEgrow

This protocol details the use of the FEgrow software for structure-based hit expansion, as applied to the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) [3].

• Objective: To automate the building and scoring of compound suggestions from a given ligand core and receptor structure, using active learning to efficiently search the combinatorial space of linkers and functional groups.
• Required Materials & Software:
  • FEgrow Software: Open-source Python package for building congeneric series in protein binding pockets.
  • Protein Structure: A prepared PDB file of the target protein (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 Mpro).
  • Ligand Core: The 3D structure of the core fragment, docked or co-crystallized in the binding site.
• Procedure:
  • Input Preparation: Define the receptor structure, ligand core, and growth vector(s). Supply libraries of linkers and R-groups (a distributed library of 2000 linkers and ~500 R-groups is provided).
  • Compound Generation: FEgrow merges the core with user-defined linkers and R-groups using RDKit, generating an ensemble of ligand conformations.
  • Conformer Optimization: The ligand conformers are optimized within the rigid protein pocket using hybrid machine learning/molecular mechanics (ML/MM) potential energy functions via OpenMM.
  • Scoring: The binding affinity of the optimized poses is predicted using the gnina convolutional neural network scoring function.
  • Active Learning Cycle:
    • An initial set of grown compounds is built and scored.
    • The results train a machine learning model, which predicts scores for the unexplored chemical space.
    • The next batch of compounds is selected based on the model's predictions (e.g., highest predicted score or greatest uncertainty).
    • The cycle repeats, iteratively refining the model's understanding of the structure-activity landscape.
• Key Application Note: The workflow can be "seeded" by performing substructure searches of on-demand chemical libraries (e.g., Enamine REAL) for compounds matching the core, treating the rest of the molecule as fully flexible during optimization [3].

Protocol 2: Nested Active Learning with a Generative Model

This protocol describes a sophisticated workflow combining a generative variational autoencoder (VAE) with two nested active learning cycles, validated on CDK2 and KRAS targets [4].

• Objective: To generate novel, drug-like, and synthesizable molecules with high predicted affinity for a specific target, overcoming data scarcity and generalization challenges.
• Required Materials & Software:
  • Generative Model: A VAE trained on a general molecular dataset (e.g., ChEMBL).
  • Oracle 1 (Chemoinformatics): Predictors for drug-likeness (e.g., QED), synthetic accessibility (e.g., RAScore), and structural novelty.
  • Oracle 2 (Molecular Modeling): A docking program (e.g., Glide) for structure-based affinity prediction.
• Procedure:
  • Initialization: The VAE is pre-trained on a general molecular dataset and then fine-tuned on a small, target-specific dataset.
  • Inner AL Cycle (Chemical Optimization):
    • The VAE generates new molecules.
    • Generated molecules are filtered by the chemoinformatics oracle for drug-likeness, synthesizability, and novelty.
    • Molecules passing the filters form a "temporal-specific set," which is used to fine-tune the VAE.
    • This cycle runs for a predefined number of iterations to build a chemically validated set.
  • Outer AL Cycle (Affinity Optimization):
    • Molecules from the temporal-specific set are evaluated using the molecular modeling oracle (docking).
    • High-scoring molecules are transferred to a "permanent-specific set," which is used for the next round of VAE fine-tuning.
    • The workflow returns to the inner AL cycle, creating a nested loop that progressively optimizes for both chemical properties and binding affinity.
  • Candidate Selection: The final output molecules from the permanent-specific set undergo rigorous filtration, including advanced molecular simulations (e.g., PELE), before selection for synthesis.

The workflow for this protocol is visualized in Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. Workflow for nested active learning with a generative model.

Quantitative Performance of Active Learning Methodologies

The efficacy of active learning approaches is demonstrated by significant performance improvements across various studies, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Quantitative Performance of Active Learning in Drug Discovery

Method / Platform	Target / Application	Key Performance Metrics	Citation
Active Learning Glide	Ultra-large library screening	Recovers ~70% of top hits from exhaustive docking at 0.1% of the cost.	[6]
FEgrow with Active Learning	SARS-CoV-2 Mpro	19 compounds tested; 3 showed weak activity in assay; successfully generated compounds with high similarity to known COVID Moonshot hits.	[3]
VAE with Nested AL	CDK2	9 molecules synthesized; 8 showed in vitro activity, including 1 with nanomolar potency.	[4]
ACARL (Activity Cliff-Aware RL)	Multiple protein targets	Superior performance in generating high-affinity molecules compared to state-of-the-art baselines by explicitly modeling activity cliffs.	[5]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Successful implementation of an active learning workflow for de novo design relies on a suite of computational tools and databases.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Active Learning Workflows

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Workflow	Citation
FEgrow	Software Package	Builds and optimizes congeneric series of compounds in a protein binding pocket; includes an API for automation.	[3]
OpenMM	Molecular Simulation Engine	Performs energy minimization and molecular dynamics simulations using ML/MM potentials.	[3]
RDKit	Cheminformatics Library	Handles molecular merging, conformer generation, and general cheminformatics tasks.	[3]
gnina	Scoring Function	A convolutional neural network used for predicting protein-ligand binding affinity.	[3]
Enamine REAL Database	Chemical Library	On-demand library of billions of purchasable compounds used to seed and validate the chemical search space.	[3]
DRAGONFLY	Deep Learning Model	Performs interactome-based, "zero-shot" generation of novel bioactive molecules without application-specific fine-tuning.	[7]
Schrödinger Suite	Commercial Platform	Provides integrated tools for AL-driven docking (Active Learning Glide) and free energy perturbation (Active Learning FEP+).	[6]
ChEMBL Database	Bioactivity Database	Provides annotated bioactivity data for training predictive models and constructing interactomes.	[7] [5]

The paradigm in de novo drug design has unequivocally shifted. The brute-force screening of immense chemical spaces is being superseded by intelligent, iterative active learning workflows that leverage both generative AI and physics-based simulations. These methodologies, such as the AL-driven FEgrow for hit expansion and the nested VAE-AL for novel scaffold generation, demonstrate a tangible impact through the experimental validation of computationally designed compounds [3] [4]. The field is moving towards even more sophisticated frameworks that explicitly capture complex pharmacological principles, such as activity cliffs, ensuring that the next generation of AI-designed drugs is not only potent but also addresses the nuanced realities of medicinal chemistry [5]. This intelligent, learning-based paradigm is poised to continue reducing the time and cost associated with discovering novel therapeutic agents.

Active Learning (AL) has emerged as a transformative paradigm in de novo drug discovery, addressing the critical challenge of efficiently navigating vast chemical spaces. An AL cycle is an iterative feedback process that strategically prioritizes the computational or experimental evaluation of molecules based on model-driven uncertainty or diversity criteria, thereby maximizing information gain while minimizing resource consumption [4]. This approach is particularly valuable in drug discovery, where traditional methods often require exhaustive evaluation of molecular libraries, hindering the exploration of extensive and diverse chemical regions [4]. By embedding a generative model directly within AL cycles, researchers can create a self-improving system that simultaneously explores novel regions of chemical space while focusing on molecules with higher predicted affinity and desirable properties [4]. The core AL cycle operates through a continuous loop of selection of informative candidates, evaluation using computational or experimental oracles, and model refinement to incorporate new knowledge, progressively enhancing the model's accuracy and guiding the exploration toward more promising regions of chemical space.

Core Workflow of an Active Learning Cycle

The fundamental AL cycle for de novo drug design can be conceptualized as a structured, iterative process comprising several key stages. The workflow diagram below illustrates the logical flow and interactions between these core components.

Workflow Visualization

Component Breakdown

The AL cycle consists of three principal components that form an iterative loop:

• Selection (Query Strategy): This component identifies the most informative candidates from a pool of unlabeled molecules for evaluation. Strategies often balance exploration (selecting diverse structures) and exploitation (selecting molecules predicted to have high performance) [3]. In the FEgrow workflow, a machine learning model predicts an objective function for the chemical space and selects the next batch of molecules for evaluation to optimize the objective or enhance exploration [3].

• Evaluation (Property Oracle): Selected candidates are assessed using a scoring function that acts as a surrogate for experimental measurement. This can include chemoinformatic oracles for drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and similarity filters [4], or physics-based oracles like molecular docking scores and binding free energy calculations [4] [3]. For example, the VAE-AL GM workflow uses molecular docking as an affinity oracle [4].

• Model Refinement (Parameter Update): Newly acquired data from the evaluation step is used to retrain and improve the predictive or generative model. This refinement step expands the model's knowledge base, enhancing its ability to propose superior candidates in subsequent cycles [4] [8]. In human-in-the-loop systems, this can also involve adapting the multi-parameter optimization scoring function based on expert feedback [8].

Detailed Experimental Protocols

This section provides detailed methodologies for implementing AL cycles in different drug discovery contexts.

Protocol 1: Nested AL with Generative Models

This protocol is adapted from a physics-based active learning framework integrated with a generative model [4].

• Application: De novo design of target-specific small molecules.
• Objective: To generate novel, diverse, drug-like molecules with high predicted affinity and synthesis accessibility for a specific protein target.
• Materials: See Table 4 for key reagents and software.
• Procedure:
  • Initialization:
    • Data Representation: Represent training molecules as tokenized SMILES strings, converted into one-hot encoding vectors.
    • Model Pre-training: Train a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) initially on a general drug-like compound dataset (e.g., ZINC). Fine-tune the VAE on a target-specific training set to learn initial target engagement.
  • Inner Active Learning Cycle (Cheminformatics Optimization):
    • Generation: Sample the VAE to produce a batch of new molecules.
    • Evaluation: Filter generated molecules for chemical validity. Evaluate the valid molecules using chemoinformatic oracles for drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and dissimilarity to the current training set.
    • Selection: Select molecules that meet predefined thresholds for the above properties.
    • Refinement: Add selected molecules to a temporal-specific set. Use this set to fine-tune the VAE. Repeat for a fixed number of iterations.
  • Outer Active Learning Cycle (Affinity Optimization):
    • Evaluation: Subject molecules accumulated in the temporal-specific set to molecular docking simulations against the target protein.
    • Selection: Transfer molecules meeting docking score thresholds to a permanent-specific set.
    • Refinement: Use the permanent-specific set to fine-tune the VAE. Return to Step 2 for further nested iterations, now assessing similarity against the permanent set.
  • Candidate Selection:
    • Apply stringent filtration to the permanent-specific set.
    • Perform intensive molecular modeling simulations (e.g., PELE) for in-depth evaluation of binding interactions and stability.
    • Select top candidates for synthesis and experimental validation.

Protocol 2: AL-Driven Prioritization for On-Demand Libraries

This protocol outlines the use of AL to prioritize compounds from purchasable libraries, as demonstrated for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [3].

• Application: Hit expansion and lead optimization using on-demand chemical libraries.
• Objective: To efficiently identify purchasable compounds with high predicted binding affinity from large databases like Enamine REAL.
• Materials: See Table 4 for key reagents and software. Requires a starting ligand core and receptor structure.
• Procedure:
  • Workflow Setup:
    • Use the FEgrow software to define a rigid ligand core, growth vectors, and libraries of linkers and R-groups.
    • Optionally, seed the initial chemical space by screening an on-demand library for compounds containing the substructure of the rigid core.
  • Active Learning Loop:
    • Generation & Evaluation: FEgrow automatically builds candidate molecules by growing linkers and R-groups on the core, optimizes their conformations in the binding pocket (using ML/MM), and scores them using an objective function (e.g., gnina CNN score, PLIP interactions).
    • Selection: An initial subset of randomly selected compounds is evaluated to create a training set.
    • A machine learning model (e.g., Random Forest) is trained to predict the objective function score based on molecular descriptors.
    • The trained model predicts scores for the entire virtual library.
    • The next batch of compounds for evaluation is selected based on the model's predictions (e.g., top-predicted scores for exploitation, or high-uncertainty points for exploration).
    • Refinement: The newly evaluated compounds are added to the training set, and the model is retrained.
  • Termination and Purchase:
    • Repeat the AL loop for a predefined number of cycles or until performance plateaus.
    • Prioritize the top-scoring, purchasable compounds for experimental testing.

Protocol 3: Human-in-the-Loop AL for Objective Function Learning

This protocol uses AL to iteratively refine a multi-parameter optimization (MPO) scoring function based on expert feedback [8].

• Application: Capturing implicit medicinal chemistry knowledge and optimizing complex, multi-objective goals.
• Objective: To adapt a scoring function to better match a chemist's goal by learning from their feedback on generated molecules.
• Materials: A generative model, a set of molecular properties for MPO, and a graphical user interface for interaction.
• Procedure:
  • Initialization:
    • Define an initial MPO scoring function S(x) with K molecular properties and initial desirability function parameters.
    • Generate an initial batch of molecules using the scoring function.
  • Interactive Feedback Loop:
    • Selection (Bayesian Optimization): A Bayesian optimization algorithm, such as Thompson sampling, selects which molecules to present to the chemist. This balances exploring the chemical space and exploiting current knowledge of the chemist's preferences.
    • Evaluation (Human Oracle): The chemist provides feedback on the presented molecules, which can be:
      • Task 1 (MPO Param.): Preference feedback (e.g., "A is better than B") or absolute scoring.
      • Task 2 (New Objective): Direct scoring of molecules for a property that is challenging to quantify.
    • Refinement (Probabilistic Update):
      • For Task 1: The parameters of the desirability functions in the MPO are updated based on the feedback, using a probabilistic user model.
      • For Task 2: A non-parametric predictive model (e.g., Gaussian Process) is trained on the chemist's feedback to act as a new component of the scoring function.
  • Molecular Generation:
    • The refined scoring function is used in the generative model (e.g., RL, VAE) to produce a new batch of molecules that better align with the chemist's goals.
    • The cycle repeats until the chemist is satisfied with the generated molecules.

Quantitative Metrics and Performance

The performance of AL-driven drug discovery campaigns is quantitatively assessed using a standard set of computational and experimental metrics, as summarized in the table below.

Table 1: Key Performance Metrics for AL Cycles in Drug Discovery

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Description	Reported Performance
Generative Performance	Validity	Proportion of generated molecules that are chemically valid.	>95% for modern GM [9]
	Uniqueness	Fraction of unique molecules among the valid ones.	>80% [9]
	Novelty	Fraction of generated molecules not present in the training set.	~70% [9]
	Internal Diversity (IntDiv)	Diversity within a set of generated molecules.	0.60-0.80 (Tanimoto) [9]
Chemical Properties	Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED)	Measures overall drug-likeness.	0.4 - 0.9 for generated molecules [9] [8]
	Synthetic Accessibility (SA)	Score estimating the ease of synthesis.	<5.0 is favorable [9]
Binding Affinity	Docking Score (ΔG)	Predicted binding affinity from molecular docking.	Used as oracle for selection [4] [5]
	Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE)	High-accuracy physics-based affinity prediction.	Used for final candidate validation [4]
Experimental Success	Hit Rate	Proportion of synthesized molecules showing activity in vitro.	8 out of 9 molecules for CDK2 [4]
	Potency	Best activity of a confirmed hit (e.g., IC~50~).	Nanomolar potency achieved for CDK2 [4]

The efficiency of the AL cycle itself is a critical performance indicator. Studies have shown that AL can achieve 5–10× higher hit rates than random selection in discovering synergistic drug combinations and significantly reduce the number of docking or ADMET assays needed to identify top candidates [4].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Successful implementation of an AL cycle for de novo drug design relies on a suite of specialized software tools and databases.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for AL-Driven Drug Discovery

Tool Name	Type/Category	Primary Function in AL Cycle
FEgrow [3]	Software Package	Builds and optimizes congeneric ligand series in a protein binding pocket; used for the Evaluation step.
gnina [3]	Scoring Function (CNN-based)	Predicts binding affinity for molecules built by FEgrow; acts as a key Evaluation oracle.
OpenMM [3]	Molecular Dynamics Engine	Performs energy minimization of ligand poses within a rigid protein during the Evaluation step.
RDKit [3]	Cheminformatics Toolkit	Handles molecule manipulation, conformer generation, and SMILES processing; foundational for Selection and Evaluation.
VAE-AL GM Framework [4]	Generative Model & AL Workflow	Core engine for molecule Generation and iterative Refinement via nested AL cycles.
ACARL Framework [5]	Reinforcement Learning Model	Enhances molecular generation by focusing on activity cliffs; used in the Refinement step.
Enamine REAL Database [3]	On-Demand Chemical Library	Provides a source of synthesizable compounds to "seed" the candidate pool for Selection.
ChEMBL [5]	Bioactivity Database	Source of known bioactive molecules for training target-specific generative models.

Active Learning (AL) represents a paradigm shift in computational drug discovery, strategically addressing the field's most pressing constraints. Traditional methods often falter when confronted with the immense scale of synthesizable chemical space (estimated at ~10^33 molecules [5]), prohibitive computational costs of high-fidelity simulations, and limited experimental data for training robust models [4]. AL introduces an iterative, feedback-driven approach where the learning algorithm proactively selects the most informative data points for evaluation, thereby maximizing learning efficiency and minimizing resource expenditure [4] [3]. This protocol outlines how AL frameworks are engineered to overcome these triad challenges, complete with detailed application notes for implementation in de novo drug design workflows. By prioritizing computation and data acquisition based on expected information gain, AL enables researchers to navigate complex biological and chemical landscapes with unprecedented precision [3] [5].

Challenge 1: Data Paucity & Strategic Data Acquisition

Application Note: Uncertainty and Diversity Sampling

The success of AL in data-scarce environments hinges on its strategic querying strategy. Instead of relying on large, pre-existing datasets, AL algorithms initiate with a small pool of labeled data (e.g., molecules with known binding affinities). The core of the workflow involves iteratively selecting the most valuable unlabeled instances for evaluation by an oracle—which could be a computational scoring function or an experimental assay [3]. Key selection criteria include:

• Uncertainty Sampling: Prioritizes compounds for which the current predictive model (e.g., a QSAR model) is most uncertain, thereby refining the model in its weakest regions [10] [3].
• Diversity Sampling: Ensures selected compounds are diverse from those already in the training set, promoting broad exploration of the chemical space and preventing overfitting to a narrow region [4].
• Expected Model Change: Selects data points that would cause the most significant change to the current model, maximizing the impact of each new data point [10].

This targeted approach has been shown to achieve high hit rates and accurate models while requiring only a fraction of the data needed by traditional high-throughput screening [3].

Protocol: Implementing a Nested Active Learning Cycle

The following protocol, adapted from a state-of-the-art generative AI workflow, details the implementation of a nested AL cycle designed to maximize information gain from limited data [4].

• Objective: To iteratively refine a generative model for designing target-specific molecules using minimal data.
• Primary Components:
  • Generative Model: A Variational Autoencoder (VAE) initially trained on a general molecular dataset.
  • Oracle 1 (Chemoinformatics): Fast filters for drug-likeness (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of Five), synthetic accessibility (SA) scores, and similarity to known actives.
  • Oracle 2 (Affinity Prediction): A more computationally expensive physics-based oracle, such as molecular docking or free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations.
  • Sets: Initial-specific training set, Temporal-specific set (passes Oracle 1), Permanent-specific set (passes Oracle 2).

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Initialization:
  • Fine-tune the pre-trained VAE on a small, target-specific dataset (the initial-specific training set).
• Inner AL Cycle (Rapid Chemical Space Exploration):
  • Generate: Sample new molecules from the VAE.
  • Evaluate: Filter generated molecules using the chemoinformatics oracle (Oracle 1). Molecules meeting predefined thresholds for drug-likeness, SA, and novelty are added to the temporal-specific set.
  • Fine-tune: Use the updated temporal-specific set to fine-tune the VAE. This cycle repeats for a fixed number of iterations, progressively steering the generation towards chemically desirable regions without expensive physics-based scoring.
• Outer AL Cycle (Focused Affinity Optimization):
  • Evaluate with Physics-Based Oracle: After several inner cycles, subject the accumulated molecules in the temporal-specific set to evaluation by Oracle 2 (e.g., molecular docking).
  • Promote Hits: Molecules meeting a high-affinity score threshold are transferred to the permanent-specific set.
  • Fine-tune: Use the permanent-specific set to fine-tune the VAE, now directly optimizing for target engagement. The process then returns to the inner cycle, but with similarity assessed against the high-affinity permanent-specific set.

This nested protocol efficiently allocates resources by using fast filters for broad exploration and reserving costly simulations for the most promising candidates, directly addressing the data paucity problem [4].

Diagram 1: Nested Active Learning Workflow. This framework uses inner cycles for rapid chemical exploration and outer cycles for affinity optimization, efficiently managing computational resources [4].

Challenge 2: High Computational Costs & Resource Allocation

Application Note: Tiered Oracle Systems

A cornerstone of cost-efficient AL is the use of multi-fidelity oracles. The most computationally expensive evaluations (e.g., absolute binding free energy calculations, which can take days per compound) are reserved for a small, pre-filtered subset of molecules [4] [3]. A typical tiered system is structured as follows:

• Tier 1 (Low Cost): Fast machine learning models or rule-based filters (e.g., for synthetic accessibility, molecular weight). These can screen millions of compounds in minutes to hours [11].
• Tier 2 (Medium Cost): Molecular docking simulations. While more expensive, they provide valuable structural insights and can process thousands to tens of thousands of compounds [4] [3].
• Tier 3 (High Cost): Advanced molecular dynamics (MD) or free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations. These are applied to only the top tens to hundreds of candidates for final validation and affinity prediction [4].

This cascading filtration ensures that 95% of generated compounds are eliminated by low-cost oracles, directing over 90% of the total computational budget towards the most promising 0.1-1% of the chemical library [4] [3].

Protocol: Active Learning with a Hybrid ML/MM Workflow

This protocol details the integration of AL into the FEgrow software package, which uses a hybrid machine learning/molecular mechanics (ML/MM) potential for ligand optimization, significantly reducing computational costs compared to pure physics-based approaches [3].

• Objective: To prioritize compounds from a vast on-demand library for a specific protein target.
• Software: FEgrow (open-source), RDKit, OpenMM, Gnina (for CNN-based scoring).
• Key Feature: The AL model learns to predict the output of the expensive FEgrow build-and-score process, allowing it to screen vast libraries cheaply after an initial training phase.

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Initialization:
  • Define the protein structure and a ligand core with a growth vector.
  • Select libraries of linkers and R-groups (can include millions of combinations).
• Initial Batch Selection and Evaluation:
  • Randomly select a small initial batch of linker/R-group combinations (e.g., 100-500).
  • For each combination, run the full FEgrow workflow: merge components, generate conformers, optimize using the ML/MM potential, and score the protein-ligand complex using Gnina.
• Active Learning Loop:
  • Train ML Model: Use the collected data (molecular descriptors + Gnina scores) to train a machine learning model (e.g., a random forest or graph neural network).
  • Predict and Select: Use the trained ML model to predict scores for all unexplored linker/R-group combinations in the library.
  • Query Oracle: Select the next batch of compounds based on the AL strategy (e.g., highest predicted score, or highest uncertainty). Run the full, expensive FEgrow workflow on this selected batch.
  • Update: Add the new data to the training set.
• Iterate and Prioritize:
  • Repeat steps 3a-3c until a computational budget is exhausted or a performance plateau is reached.
  • The final model is used to prioritize the top-ranking compounds for purchase and experimental testing [3].

This protocol demonstrated success in targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro), identifying novel inhibitors while evaluating only a small fraction of the possible chemical space [3].

Table 1: Performance of Tiered Oracle System in a Generative AI Workflow [4]

Oracle Tier	Evaluation Method	Typical Compounds Processed	Attrition Rate to Next Tier	Key Function
Tier 1 (Fast)	Drug-likeness & SA Filters	1,000,000+	~95%	Rapid elimination of unsuitable molecules
Tier 2 (Medium)	Molecular Docking	50,000	~90%	Affinity prediction and pose validation
Tier 3 (Slow)	PELE Simulations / ABFE	500	~80%	High-fidelity affinity & binding pose ranking

Challenge 3: Vast Chemical Space & Navigated Exploration

Application Note: Synthesis-Constrained Generation and Activity Cliff Awareness

Navigating the vast chemical space requires AL to not only explore but also exploit critical regions. Two advanced strategies are pivotal:

• Constraining Search to Synthesizable Chemical Space: Traditional generative models often produce molecules that are impractical to synthesize. Newer frameworks like SynFormer directly address this by generating synthetic pathways rather than just molecular structures [11]. SynFormer uses a transformer-based architecture to autoregressively generate sequences of reactions and building blocks, ensuring every proposed molecule is derived from purchasable components via known chemical transformations. This dramatically focuses the explorable chemical space from a theoretical ~10^33 to the billions of readily synthesizable molecules in make-on-demand libraries like Enamine REAL [11].

• Leveraging Activity Cliffs for Informed Exploration: Activity cliffs—where small structural changes cause large potency shifts—are critical but challenging SAR features. The Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning (ACARL) framework explicitly identifies these using an Activity Cliff Index (ACI) and incorporates them into the learning process via a contrastive loss function [5]. This allows the AL algorithm to focus optimization efforts on high-impact regions of the chemical space, improving the efficiency of discovering high-affinity ligands.

Protocol: Activity Cliff-Aware Active Learning

This protocol integrates activity cliff awareness into a reinforcement learning-based molecular design pipeline to enhance navigation of complex SAR landscapes [5].

• Objective: To generate novel molecules with high binding affinity by explicitly modeling and exploiting activity cliffs.
• Prerequisites: A dataset of molecules with associated binding affinities (e.g., Ki, IC50) for the target of interest.

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Calculate the Activity Cliff Index (ACI):
  • For each molecular pair (x, y) in the dataset, compute the ACI using the formula:
    • ACI(x, y) = |f(x) - f(y)| / d_T(x, y)
  • Where f(x) is the activity (e.g., pKi) and d_T(x, y) is the Tanimoto distance based on molecular fingerprints.
  • Flag pairs with an ACI above a defined threshold as "activity cliff" pairs [5].
• Incorporate Contrastive Loss into RL:
  • Use a generative model (e.g., a Transformer) as the RL agent.
  • The standard reward is the predicted or computed affinity of the generated molecule.
  • Introduce an additional contrastive loss term that pulls the representations of structurally similar molecules closer in the latent space if their activities are similar, and pushes them apart if their activities are different (i.e., if they form an activity cliff) [5].
• Active Learning Loop:
  • The agent generates a batch of molecules.
  • The molecules are evaluated (e.g., via a docking oracle).
  • The reward and contrastive loss are calculated, with the contrastive loss specifically amplifying the learning signal from identified activity cliffs.
  • The agent's policy is updated using a combined loss function (standard RL loss + contrastive loss).
• Iterate:
  • Repeat the AL loop, allowing the model to progressively learn the complex, discontinuous SAR and generate molecules that intelligently "jump" to high-affinity regions [5].

This protocol has been validated on multiple targets, showing superior performance in generating high-affinity molecules compared to methods blind to activity cliffs [5].

Diagram 2: Activity Cliff-Aware Active Learning. This workflow integrates activity cliff detection directly into the RL optimization process for more efficient SAR navigation [5].

Table 2: The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Software for AL-Driven Drug Discovery

Tool Name / Type	Specific Example(s)	Function in Workflow	Key Application Note
Generative Model	Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [4], Transformer [5]	Generates novel molecular structures or synthetic pathways from a learned distribution.	VAEs offer a balance of speed and stability for integration with AL cycles [4].
Chemical Oracle	RDKit, SA Score (SAS) Filter	Fast computation of drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and molecular properties.	Used in the initial AL loop for rapid, large-scale filtering [4] [3].
Physics-Based Oracle	Molecular Docking (Gnina [3]), PELE [4], FEP	Provides an estimate of binding affinity and pose by simulating ligand-receptor interactions.	More accurate but computationally expensive; used on pre-filtered compound sets [4] [3].
AL Query Strategy	Uncertainty Sampling, Diversity Sampling	Algorithm that selects the most informative compounds for the next round of evaluation.	Critical for defining the efficiency of the overall AL campaign [10] [3].
Synthesizable Space Library	Enamine REAL Space, GalaXi [11]	Massive libraries of virtual compounds that are readily synthesizable from available building blocks.	Constrains the generative search space to molecules with high practical utility [11].
Hybrid ML/MM Platform	FEgrow [3], OpenMM	Software that combines machine learning force fields with molecular mechanics for efficient conformational sampling and scoring.	Dramatically reduces the cost of building and scoring ligands in a binding pocket [3].

The integration of Active Learning into de novo drug design represents a foundational shift from brute-force screening to intelligent, iterative exploration. By strategically querying limited data, allocating computational resources through tiered oracles, and constraining exploration to synthesizable and pharmacologically significant regions of chemical space, AL directly tackles the core inefficiencies that have long plagued the drug discovery process. The protocols and application notes detailed herein provide a roadmap for researchers to implement these powerful strategies, accelerating the journey from target identification to viable pre-clinical candidates.

Application Notes

The integration of Active Learning (AL) with deep generative models, specifically Variational Autoencoders (VAEs) and Transformers, establishes a robust, self-improving pipeline for de novo drug design. This synergy directly confronts key challenges in the field: the poor generalization of molecular property predictors and the exploration of novel chemical space beyond training data constraints [12] [4]. By embedding a generative model within iterative feedback loops, this paradigm shifts from a static "design-then-predict" approach to a dynamic "describe-then-design" process, enabling the guided discovery of synthesizable, high-affinity molecules [13] [4].

Core Synergistic Advantages:

• Overcoming Predictor Limitations: A primary limitation of generative models is their reliance on property predictors that often fail to generalize to new regions of chemical space. An AL framework addresses this by iteratively refining both the generative model and the predictive oracles using high-fidelity, physics-based simulations (e.g., molecular docking) [12] [4].
• Guided Exploration and Exploitation: The VAE provides a continuous, structured latent space ideal for smooth interpolation and guided exploration [14]. The AL protocol uses acquisition functions to navigate this space, balancing the exploitation of regions with known high-affinity ligands with the exploration of novel, uncertain areas to discover new scaffolds [4].
• Enhanced Validity and Synthesizability: Transformer-based models, adept at processing sequential data like SMILES strings, learn the complex "syntax" of chemical structures [15] [16]. When coupled with AL cycles that incorporate synthetic accessibility (SA) filters, the generation of chemically valid and readily synthesizable molecules is significantly enhanced [4].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarks

The following tables summarize key performance metrics demonstrating the efficacy of the merged AL-generative AI approach.

Table 1: Overall Model Performance in Target Engagement

Model / Workflow	Novel Scaffold Generation	High Affinity Rate	Experimental Hit Rate	Key Target
VAE-AL (Nested Cycles) [4]	Successfully generated novel scaffolds distinct from known inhibitors [4]	High predicted affinity and excellent docking scores [4]	8/9 synthesized molecules showed in vitro activity [4]	CDK2
VAE-AL (Nested Cycles) [4]	Explored sparsely populated chemical space [4]	Excellent docking scores [4]	4 molecules with potential activity identified in silico [4]	KRAS
Active Learning-Enhanced Generator [12]	Enabled extrapolation beyond training data (up to 0.44 SD) [12]	N/A	N/A	Molecular Properties
DiffSMol [17]	N/A	N/A	61.4% success rate in generating viable candidates [17]	General Screening

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Generative Model Architectures

Model Architecture	Validity & Quality	Diversity	Training Stability	Ideal for AL Integration
VAE [4] [14]	High chemical validity; rapid, parallelizable sampling [4]	Smooth latent space enables controlled exploration [14]	Robust and scalable, performs well in low-data regimes [4]	Yes - due to speed, stability, and interpretable latent space [4]
Transformer [13] [16]	High validity by learning molecular "grammar" [15]	Captures long-range dependencies in sequences [13]	Stable but can be computationally intensive [13]	Yes - particularly for sequence-based generation and optimization
GAN [13] [18]	Can produce high yields of valid molecules [18]	High structural diversity [18]	Prone to mode collapse and training instability [4]	Less suitable due to instability [4]
Diffusion Models [13]	Exceptional sample quality and diversity [13]	High-quality, chemically rich outputs [13]	Considerable computational overhead per sampling step [4]	Potentially, but computational cost can be prohibitive [4]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Nested Active Learning with a VAE for Target-Specific Molecule Generation

This protocol details the procedure for implementing a VAE within nested AL cycles to generate novel, drug-like molecules with high affinity for a specific protein target, as validated on CDK2 and KRAS [4].

2.1.1 Workflow Overview

The following diagram illustrates the nested active learning workflow that integrates a VAE with chemoinformatic and molecular modeling oracles.

2.1.2 Materials and Reagents

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for VAE-AL Workflow

Item Name	Function / Description	Example Source / Implementation
Target-Specific Training Set	Initial set of known actives/inactives for a specific target to fine-tune the generative model for target engagement.	Public databases (ChEMBL, BindingDB) or proprietary corporate data.
Molecular Representation	Encoding molecular structures into a machine-readable format. SMILES strings, tokenized and one-hot encoded, are commonly used [4].	RDKit, Open Babel.
VAE Architecture	The core generative model comprising an encoder and decoder network to learn and sample from the latent space of molecular structures [4] [18].	Custom implementation in PyTorch/TensorFlow using fully connected layers.
Chemoinformatic Oracle	Computational filters to assess drug-likeness (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of 5), synthetic accessibility (SA), and similarity to training set.	QSAR models, RDKit calculated descriptors, SAscore.
Affinity Oracle	Physics-based simulation to predict binding affinity of generated molecules to the target protein.	Molecular docking software (AutoDock Vina, Glide, DiffDock [13]).
Molecular Dynamics (MD) Suite	Software for advanced simulation to refine and validate binding poses and energetics of top candidates.	PELE [4], GROMACS, AMBER for Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE) calculations.

2.1.3 Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Representation and Initial Training:

  • Input: Assemble a target-specific training set of molecules, represented as canonical SMILES strings.
  • Preprocessing: Tokenize the SMILES strings and convert them into one-hot encoding vectors [4].
  • Training: First, pre-train the VAE on a large, general molecular dataset (e.g., ZINC). Then, perform initial fine-tuning on the target-specific training set. The VAE loss function is: ℒ₍ᵥₐₑ₎ = 𝔼ᵩ(ź|ˣ)[log p₍ᵩ₎(x|z)] - D₍ₖₗ₎[q₍ᵩ₎(z|x) || p(z)], combining reconstruction loss and KL divergence [18].

• Molecule Generation and Inner AL Cycle (Cheminformatic Filtering):

  • Generation: Sample random vectors from the latent space and decode them into novel molecular structures (SMILES) using the trained VAE.
  • Validation & Filtering: Filter generated structures for chemical validity using a toolkit like RDKit.
  • Oracle Evaluation: Pass valid molecules through the chemoinformatic oracle to evaluate:
    • Drug-likeness (e.g., QED)
    • Synthetic accessibility (SAscore)
    • Dissimilarity from the current training set (e.g., Tanimoto similarity < threshold)
  • Fine-tuning: Molecules passing these thresholds are added to a "temporal-specific set." The VAE is then fine-tuned on this set, guiding subsequent generations toward more drug-like and synthetically accessible regions of chemical space. This inner cycle repeats for a predefined number of iterations.

• Outer AL Cycle (Affinity-Driven Optimization):

  • Affinity Evaluation: After several inner cycles, molecules accumulated in the temporal-specific set are evaluated by the affinity oracle (e.g., molecular docking).
  • Selection: Molecules meeting a predefined docking score threshold are transferred to a "permanent-specific set."
  • Fine-tuning: The VAE is fine-tuned on this permanent-specific set, directly steering the generation process toward structures with higher predicted affinity for the target. The inner AL cycles then resume, but now similarity is assessed against this improved permanent set.

• Candidate Selection and Experimental Validation:

  • Rigorous Filtration: After multiple outer AL cycles, select top candidates from the permanent-specific set based on a combination of excellent docking scores, drug-likeness, and novelty.
  • Advanced Simulation: Subject these candidates to more computationally intensive molecular modeling simulations, such as Monte Carlo simulations with protein energy landscape exploration (PELE) [4] or absolute binding free energy (ABFE) calculations, to refine binding poses and improve affinity predictions.
  • Synthesis and Assay: Select the most promising candidates for chemical synthesis and in vitro biological testing, closing the experimental validation loop.

Protocol 2: Multi-Model Fusion with Transformers for Enhanced Drug-Target Interaction (DTI) Prediction

This protocol leverages a hybrid architecture combining VAEs, GANs, and MLPs to improve the accuracy of Drug-Target Interaction prediction, a critical task in early-stage discovery [18].

2.2.1 Workflow Architecture

The following diagram outlines the framework for the multi-model fusion approach to DTI prediction.

2.2.2 Materials and Reagents

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Multi-Model DTI Framework

Item Name	Function / Description	Example Source / Implementation
Interaction Dataset	Labeled dataset of known drug-target pairs with binding affinities for model training.	BindingDB [18].
Molecular Features	Numerical representation of molecular structures.	Extended-connectivity fingerprints (ECFPs) or graph-based features.
VAE for Representation	Encodes input molecules into a probabilistic latent distribution to capture a smooth, continuous representation [18].	Encoder network outputting mean (μ) and log-variance (log σ²).
GAN for Diversity	Generates realistic, diverse molecular feature vectors through adversarial training between a Generator and Discriminator [18].	Generator (G) and Discriminator (D) networks trained with minmax loss.
Multilayer Perceptron (MLP)	A deep neural network that performs the final DTI classification or binding affinity regression based on fused features.	Fully connected layers with ReLU activation and a sigmoid output layer.

2.2.3 Step-by-Step Procedure

• Data Preparation and Feature Extraction:

  • Input: Curate a dataset of drug-target pairs with confirmed interaction labels (e.g., Ki, IC50) from a source like BindingDB.
  • Representation: Encode small molecules as feature vectors (e.g., molecular fingerprints). Represent target proteins by their amino acid sequences or pre-computed structural descriptors.

• Model Training and Fusion:

  • VAE Training: Train the VAE on the molecular features. The encoder f_θ(x) maps a molecule to a latent distribution q(z|x) = N(z|μ(x), σ²(x)). The decoder g_φ(z) reconstructs the input. The model learns by minimizing the VAE loss function (see Protocol 1.1.3) [18].
  • GAN Training: Train the Generative Adversarial Network. The generator G(z) takes a noise vector and produces synthetic molecular features. The discriminator D(x) tries to distinguish real features from generated ones. They are trained adversarially using the loss functions:
    • Discriminator Loss: ℒ_D = 𝔼_𝑥∼𝑝_𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑎(𝑥)[log D(x)] + 𝔼_𝑧∼𝑝_𝑧(𝑧)[log (1 - D(G(z)))]
    • Generator Loss: ℒ_G = -𝔼_𝑧∼𝑝_𝑧(𝑧)[log D(G(z))] [18]
  • Feature Fusion: For a given input molecule, use the trained VAE encoder to obtain its latent representation z. This latent vector is then fused with the original molecular feature vector (or the target protein feature vector).

• DTI Prediction with MLP:

  • Input: The fused feature vector is fed into the MLP classifier.
  • Forward Pass: The MLP, consisting of multiple fully connected layers (e.g., h_i = σ(W_i * h_(i-1) + b_i)), processes the input.
  • Output: The final layer uses a sigmoid activation to produce a scalar y representing the probability of interaction or a predicted binding affinity value [18].
  • Training: The MLP is trained on the labeled DTI data using an appropriate loss function, such as Mean Squared Error (MSE) for regression or Binary Cross-Entropy for classification.

Advanced Methodologies and Real-World Applications in AL-Driven Design

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into drug discovery represents a paradigm shift from traditional, high-cost experimental methods towards data-driven, computational approaches. Central to this transformation is Active Learning (AL), an iterative feedback process that maximizes information gain while minimizing resource use by prioritizing the evaluation of molecules based on model-driven uncertainty or diversity criteria [4]. This application note details advanced architectural frameworks that combine nested AL cycles with physics-based oracles and human-in-the-loop (HITL) systems to address critical challenges in de novo drug design, such as limited target-specific data, poor synthetic accessibility, and the failure of models to generalize beyond their training data [4] [19]. These frameworks are designed to systematically explore the vast chemical space and generate novel, drug-like molecules with a high probability of experimental success.

Core Architectural Framework and Components

The advanced architectural frameworks for de novo drug design rest on three interconnected pillars: a structured, multi-level active learning process; the integration of oracles with varying fidelity; and the incorporation of expert human knowledge.

The Nested Active Learning Cycle

A sophisticated implementation of AL involves a two-tiered, nested cycle that separates chemical optimization from target-binding optimization [4] [20]. This structure allows for efficient exploration of chemical space while progressively steering the generative model toward molecules with high predicted affinity for a specific target.

The following diagram illustrates the workflow and logical relationships within a nested active learning framework for drug design:

Diagram 1: Nested Active Learning Workflow. This diagram outlines the two-tiered cycle where an inner loop refines physico-chemical properties and an outer loop optimizes for target binding affinity.

The nested AL framework operates as follows:

• Inner AL Cycle (Chemical Space Optimization): The generative model, often a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [4] [20] or a Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based agent [5], produces novel molecules. These molecules are first evaluated using fast chemoinformatic oracles for fundamental properties like drug-likeness (QED), synthetic accessibility (SA), and other physico-chemical filters (e.g., molecular weight, logP) [4] [20]. Molecules meeting the thresholds are used to fine-tune the model, creating a self-improving cycle that enhances the chemical quality of subsequent generations.
• Outer AL Cycle (Target Affinity Optimization): After several inner cycles, molecules accumulated in the temporal set are evaluated by more computationally expensive, physics-based oracles like molecular docking [4] [21]. Molecules achieving favorable docking scores are promoted to a permanent set and used to fine-tune the model on this higher-fidelity data. This outer cycle guides the generative model towards regions of chemical space with high predicted target engagement.

Multi-Fidelity Oracles

A key challenge in AI-driven drug design is the trade-off between the accuracy of an oracle and its computational cost. Multi-fidelity modeling addresses this by strategically integrating data from oracles of varying cost and accuracy [21].

• Low-Fidelity Oracles: Methods like molecular docking are fast and scalable, allowing for the rapid screening of thousands to billions of molecules. However, they are relatively poor predictors of real-world biological activity [21].
• High-Fidelity Oracles: Techniques like Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE) calculations, based on molecular dynamics simulations, are considered highly reliable for predicting affinity but are prohibitively expensive for screening large libraries [4] [21].

Frameworks like Multi-Fidelity Latent space Active Learning (MF-LAL) integrate these oracles by training surrogate models within a hierarchical latent space. This allows the generative model to use inexpensive docking scores to explore vast chemical spaces, while selectively using precise ABFE calculations to refine predictions and generate high-quality samples at the highest fidelity level [21].

The Human-in-the-Loop (HITL)

While computational oracles are powerful, they often fail to capture the implicit knowledge and intuition of medicinal chemists. Human-in-the-loop systems formally integrate expert feedback to refine the goal of the generative model [22] [19].

• Reward Elicitation: Instead of manually tuning the multi-parameter optimization (MPO) scoring function through trial and error, HITL systems learn the scoring function directly from user feedback. Experts provide feedback on generated molecules, which is used to infer the parameters of desirability functions for each molecular property or to build a non-parametric predictive model that captures domain knowledge [22].
• Active Learning for Feedback: Bayesian optimization and other AL techniques are used to decide which molecules are presented to the expert for feedback, balancing exploration of the chemical space with exploitation of known high-scoring regions to maximize learning efficiency [22].

Experimental Protocols and Validation

The practical application and validation of these frameworks are demonstrated through several recent studies, showcasing their ability to generate experimentally active compounds.

Protocol: Nested AL with a VAE for Kinase Inhibitors

This protocol is adapted from a study that successfully generated novel, potent inhibitors for CDK2 and KRAS [4].

• 1. Data Preparation and Model Initialization:
  • Source: Represent molecules as SMILES strings, tokenized and converted into one-hot encoding vectors.
  • Training: Initialize a VAE by pre-training on a large, general molecular dataset (e.g., ChEMBL). Fine-tune the model on an initial target-specific training set to bootstrap target engagement.
• 2. Active Learning Cycles:
  • Inner Cycle (Chemical Optimization):
    • Generation: Sample the VAE to generate new molecules.
    • Evaluation: Filter molecules for chemical validity, drug-likeness (QED > 0.5), and synthetic accessibility (SAscore < 6).
    • Fine-tuning: Add molecules passing the filters to a temporal-specific set. Use this set to fine-tune the VAE. Repeat for a predefined number of cycles.
  • Outer Cycle (Affinity Optimization):
    • Evaluation: Subject molecules from the temporal set to molecular docking simulations against the target protein (e.g., CDK2).
    • Selection: Transfer molecules with docking scores below a set threshold (e.g., ≤ -7.0 kcal/mol) to a permanent-specific set.
    • Fine-tuning: Use the permanent set to fine-tune the VAE. Subsequent inner cycles assess novelty against this refined set.
• 3. Candidate Selection and Experimental Validation:
  • Refinement: Apply more rigorous physics-based simulations, such as Protein Energy Landscape Exploration (PELE) [4], to the top-ranked molecules to evaluate binding pose stability.
  • Synthesis and Testing: Select candidates for chemical synthesis and validate their activity through in vitro assays (e.g., IC₅₀ determination).

Validation: This workflow generated novel scaffolds distinct from known inhibitors. For CDK2, 9 molecules were synthesized, with 8 showing in vitro activity and one exhibiting nanomolar potency [4].

Protocol: Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning (ACARL)

This protocol addresses the challenge of activity cliffs, where small structural changes cause significant shifts in biological activity, which standard models often miss [5].

• 1. Data Analysis and Activity Cliff Identification:
  • Calculate the Activity Cliff Index (ACI) for molecular pairs in the training data: ACI(x, y; f) = |f(x) - f(y)| / dₜ(x, y), where f is the activity (e.g., pKi) and dₜ is the Tanimoto distance [5].
  • Flag molecule pairs with an ACI above a defined threshold as activity cliffs.
• 2. Model Training and Fine-tuning:
  • Base Model: Pre-train a generative model, such as a Transformer decoder, on a large corpus of molecules.
  • RL Framework: Use a molecular scoring function (e.g., docking score) as the environment for reinforcement learning.
  • Contrastive Loss: Incorporate a tailored contrastive loss function during RL fine-tuning that amplifies the learning signal from identified activity cliff compounds. This forces the model to better recognize and generate molecules in high-impact regions of the structure-activity relationship (SAR) landscape [5].
• 3. Evaluation:
  • Assess the generated molecules based on docking scores and structural diversity against state-of-the-art baselines.

Validation: ACARL demonstrated superior performance in generating high-affinity molecules for multiple protein targets compared to existing algorithms, effectively integrating complex SAR principles into the design process [5].

Quantitative Outcomes of Frameworks

The following table summarizes key experimental results from studies employing these advanced frameworks, highlighting their efficacy.

Table 1: Experimental Validation of Advanced AL Frameworks in Drug Design

Target Protein	Architectural Framework	Key Generative Model	Experimental Outcome	Reference
CDK2 / KRAS	Nested AL Cycles with Physics-Based Oracles	Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	CDK2: 9 molecules synthesized; 8 with in vitro activity, 1 with nanomolar potency. KRAS: 4 molecules with potential activity identified in silico.	[4]
SIK3	Nested AL Cycles (Inner: Property, Outer: Docking)	Sequence-to-Sequence VAE	Successful in silico generation of novel, drug-like molecules with high predicted affinity and desirable CNS properties. Docking scores improved to ≤ -7.5 kcal/mol.	[20]
Multiple Targets	Activity Cliff-Aware RL (ACARL)	Transformer Decoder	Surpassed state-of-the-art algorithms in generating molecules with high binding affinity and diversity across multiple protein targets.	[5]
Multiple Proteins	Multi-Fidelity LAL (MF-LAL)	Latent Space Model	Achieved ~50% improvement in mean binding free energy scores compared to single-fidelity and other multi-fidelity baselines.	[21]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

This section details key computational tools and resources that form the foundation for implementing the described architectural frameworks.

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Advanced AL-Driven Drug Design

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Workflow	Application Example
AutoDock Vina, Glide	Physics-Based Oracle (Low-Fidelity)	Provides rapid, structure-based prediction of ligand binding affinity and pose via molecular docking.	Initial affinity screening in the outer AL cycle [4] [20].
Absolute Binding Free Energy (ABFE)	Physics-Based Oracle (High-Fidelity)	Uses molecular dynamics simulations for highly accurate prediction of binding affinity; used for final candidate validation.	High-fidelity validation in MF-LAL framework [21].
ChEMBL Database	Chemical Data Source	A large, open-access repository of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties used for pre-training generative models.	Source of initial training and fine-tuning data [4] [20].
Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	Generative Model	Learns a continuous latent representation of molecules, enabling smooth interpolation and controlled generation.	Core generative component in nested AL frameworks [4] [20].
Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED)	Cheminformatic Oracle	Computes a score that estimates the overall drug-likeness of a molecule based on its physicochemical properties.	Filtering step in the inner AL cycle [20].
Synthetic Accessibility Score (SAScore)	Cheminformatic Oracle	Estimates the ease with which a molecule can be synthesized, based on fragment contributions and complexity penalties.	Filtering step in the inner AL cycle to prioritize synthesizable compounds [20].
Activity Cliff Index (ACI)	Analytical Metric	Quantifies the intensity of SAR discontinuities by comparing structural similarity with differences in biological activity.	Identifying critical training data points in ACARL framework [5].

The integration of nested active learning cycles, physics-based multi-fidelity oracles, and human-in-the-loop feedback represents a mature and validated architectural paradigm for de novo drug design. These frameworks systematically address the core challenges of the field: navigating the immense chemical space, overcoming the inaccuracy of single-fidelity scoring functions, and incorporating crucial expert knowledge. As evidenced by multiple successful applications in generating inhibitors for targets like CDK2, KRAS, and SIK3, this synergistic approach significantly accelerates the discovery of novel, potent, and drug-like molecules. Future developments will likely focus on further refining the efficiency of high-fidelity oracle use and creating more intuitive interfaces for human-AI collaboration, solidifying the role of AI as a transformative force in pharmaceutical research and development.

Structure-Based Drug Design (SBDD) utilizes three-dimensional structural information of biological targets to systematically design novel therapeutic compounds [23]. Within this framework, molecular docking explores ligand conformations within macromolecular binding sites, while Free Energy Perturbation (FEP+) provides physics-based binding affinity predictions approaching experimental accuracy [23] [24]. However, the computational expense of these methods traditionally limits their application in exploring ultra-large chemical spaces.

Active Learning (AL) presents a paradigm shift, integrating machine learning with molecular simulation to create iterative, self-improving design cycles [6]. By training models on strategically selected, computationally-derived data, AL enables the efficient exploration of vast molecular libraries at a fraction of the traditional cost, making the combination of docking and FEP+ practical for de novo drug design [6] [25].

Key Computational Components

Research Reagent Solutions

The following tools are essential for implementing an integrated SBDD workflow with Active Learning.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Structure-Based Design with AL

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function in Workflow	Key Application
Glide [6]	Molecular Docking Software	Predicts ligand-binding poses and provides initial scoring.	Structure-based virtual screening of ultra-large libraries.
FEP+ [24]	Free Energy Calculator	Computes relative protein-ligand binding affinities with high accuracy.	Lead optimization; validating predictions from machine learning models.
Active Learning Applications [6]	Machine Learning Workflow	Trains ML models on docking/FEP+ data to prioritize compounds.	Accelerated screening of billion-molecule libraries.
AutoDock Vina [26]	Molecular Docking Software	Open-source tool for flexible ligand docking.	Virtual screening and pose prediction in academic settings.
DRAGONFLY [7]	Deep Learning Model	Enables de novo molecular generation using interactome-based learning.	Generating novel bioactive molecules from scratch.
REINVENT [25]	Generative & RL Model	De novo molecular generation guided by reinforcement learning.	Multiparameter optimization of generated compounds.
AIxFuse [27]	Multi-Target Design	Uses RL and AL for structure-aware dual-target drug design.	Generating single molecules with desired activity against two targets.

Performance Metrics of Integrated Workflows

Quantitative benchmarks demonstrate the significant efficiency gains achieved by integrating AL with physics-based simulations.

Table 2: Performance Benchmarks of Active Learning in Drug Design

Method / Workflow	Key Performance Metric	Reported Result	Implication
Active Learning Glide [6]	Hit Recovery (vs. exhaustive docking)	~70% of top hits, for 0.1% of the cost	Enables screening of billion-compound libraries with high fidelity.
RL with Active Learning [25]	Increase in Hit Rate (vs. baseline RL)	5 to 66-fold increase	Drastic reduction in computational time to find active compounds.
AIxFuse [27]	Success Rate (Dual-inhibitor design)	Up to 23.96% (5x higher than other methods)	Effectively generates molecules satisfying complex, multi-target constraints.
FEP+ [24]	Predictive Accuracy	~1.0 kcal/mol (matches experimental error)	Provides a reliable gold standard for binding affinity within the AL cycle.

Application Notes & Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Active Learning for Ultra-Large Virtual Screening with Docking

This protocol uses Active Learning Glide to efficiently screen billion-member virtual libraries, recovering most top-scoring compounds with a dramatic reduction in computational cost [6].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Library Preparation: Compile an ultra-large library of compounds in a suitable format (e.g., SMILES). Libraries can range from millions to billions of molecules [6] [25].
• Initial Sampling: The AL algorithm randomly selects a small, statistically representative subset (e.g., 0.01%) of the total library for the first iteration.
• Docking and Scoring: Dock the selected subset against the prepared protein target using Glide to generate docking scores and poses [6].
• Model Training & Prediction: Train a machine learning model (e.g., a neural network) on the docking results. This model learns to predict the docking score of unevaluated compounds based on their chemical features.
• Informed Selection & Iteration: The trained ML model predicts the docking scores for the entire unscreened library. A new subset of compounds is selected based on the model's predictions (e.g., those predicted to be top-binders) and is subsequently docked.
• Convergence: Steps 4 and 5 are repeated iteratively. The model becomes increasingly accurate, focusing computational resources on the most promising regions of chemical space. The process concludes once a predetermined fraction of the library has been screened or when the hit rate plateaus.

Protocol 2: Active Learning-DrivenDe NovoMolecular Generation and Optimization

This protocol leverages a generative model guided by reinforcement learning (RL), with an AL-trained predictor as the scoring function, for de novo design [25].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Agent Initialization: Start with a generative model, such as a Recurrent Neural Network (RNN) pre-trained on known bioactive molecules (e.g., from ChEMBL) to establish a prior understanding of chemical space [25].
• Molecular Generation: The RL agent generates a batch of novel molecules.
• AL-Based Scoring: The generated molecules are scored by a surrogate model trained via Active Learning. For example:
  • The AL model is first trained on a limited set of FEP+ results for a congeneric series [24] [25].
  • As new molecules are generated, the AL model predicts their binding affinity, avoiding the cost of running FEP+ on every candidate.
  • Periodically, the most promising novel candidates identified by the RL agent are evaluated with actual FEP+ calculations, and these new data points are used to retrain and improve the AL model [25].
• Policy Update: The scores from the AL surrogate model (and other property filters) are used as the reward in the RL framework. The agent's policy is updated to increase the probability of generating molecules with high rewards.
• Iteration: Steps 2-4 are repeated for numerous cycles, allowing the agent to learn the complex structure-activity relationships and propose increasingly optimal compounds.

Protocol 3: Structure-Based Design of Dual-Target Inhibitors with AIxFuse

AIxFuse represents a specialized application that uses AL and RL to fuse pharmacophores for dual-target drugs, addressing a key challenge in polypharmacology [27].

Step-by-Step Workflow:

• Input Preparation: For each target (e.g., GSK3β and JNK3), gather the protein structure and a set of known active compounds.
• Pharmacophore Extraction: Dock known actives into their respective targets (using Glide). Analyze the resulting protein-ligand complexes to extract key interaction points (pharmacophores) [27].
• Fragment Library Creation: Deconstruct the active compounds into core and side-chain fragments based on the identified pharmacophores.
• Collaborative Learning Loop:
  • Two Self-Play RL Agents: Two Monte Carlo Tree Search (MCTS) actors collaboratively explore the fusion of fragments from the two pharmacophore sets [27].
  • AL as a Critic: A multi-task neural network, trained via Active Learning on dual-target docking scores, acts as a critic. It provides feedback on the binding affinity of the fused molecules against both targets. This critic is iteratively refined with new docking data from the most promising generated compounds [27].
• Multi-Objective Optimization: The RL agents aim to maximize a reward function that includes the critic's docking scores, along with drug-likeness and synthetic accessibility metrics.
• Output & Validation: The final output is a set of generated molecules predicted to be high-affinity dual-target inhibitors. Top-ranking designs should be validated experimentally and, if possible, by determining the co-crystal structure of the ligand-receptor complex [7].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated, cyclical nature of a structure-based de novo design workflow powered by Active Learning.

Integrated de novo Design Workflow with Active Learning

The core Active Learning cycle can be broken down into four key iterative steps, as shown below.

Core Active Learning Cycle

Discussion

The integration of docking, FEP+, and Active Learning creates a powerful, iterative feedback loop for drug discovery. This synergy allows researchers to navigate chemical space with unprecedented efficiency, moving from simple docking scores to highly accurate FEP+ validation within a unified, automated workflow [6] [24] [25].

Key advantages include:

• Unprecedented Efficiency: AL reduces the number of required FEP+ or docking calculations by orders of magnitude, making it feasible to apply these high-fidelity methods to ultra-large libraries and complex optimization problems [6] [25].
• Enhanced Exploration: Generative models guided by AL-based rewards can discover novel, synthetically accessible scaffolds that might be missed by traditional virtual screening of static libraries [7] [25].
• Prospective Validation: The prospective application of these workflows, leading to the synthesis and experimental confirmation of potent inhibitors for targets like PPARγ and dual inhibitors for GSK3β/JNK3, demonstrates their practical impact and readiness for deployment in real-world drug discovery projects [7] [27].

In conclusion, the combination of structure-based design tools with Active Learning represents a foundational shift in computational medicinal chemistry. It transcends traditional sequential workflows, creating a dynamic, adaptive, and profoundly more efficient pipeline for the de novo design of innovative therapeutics.

Ligand-Based Drug Design (LBDD) represents a critical computational approach for the discovery and optimization of lead compounds when the three-dimensional (3D) structure of the biological target is unknown or unavailable [28]. By analyzing the structural and physico-chemical properties of known active ligands, LBDD methods infer the features necessary for biological activity, enabling the prediction and design of novel bioactive molecules [28] [29].

Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) modeling and pharmacophore modeling are the foundational pillars of LBDD [28]. QSAR quantitatively correlates numerical descriptors of a series of compounds with their measured biological activity, while a pharmacophore model abstractly defines the spatial arrangement of steric and electronic features indispensable for molecular recognition [28] [29].

Recent advancements are pushing the boundaries of traditional LBDD. The emergence of deep interactome learning leverages large-scale drug-target interaction networks, integrating the strengths of graph neural networks and chemical language models to generate novel, active, and synthetically accessible compounds from scratch—a process known as de novo design [7]. Furthermore, the integration of these generative models within active learning (AL) frameworks creates iterative, self-improving cycles that efficiently explore vast chemical spaces guided by computational oracles, significantly accelerating the hit-to-lead optimization process [4]. These modern paradigms are increasingly framed within an active learning context for de novo design, where the model intelligently selects which proposed compounds to "test" computationally, thereby refining its understanding of the structure-activity relationship with maximal efficiency [4].

Key Methodologies and Protocols

This section details the core computational protocols for implementing advanced ligand-based design strategies, focusing on interactome learning and QSAR modeling integrated within an active learning cycle.

Protocol 1: Interactome-BasedDe NovoDesign with DRAGONFLY

DRAGONFLY is a computational approach that utilizes deep learning on drug-target interactomes for de novo molecular generation without requiring target structural data [7].

1. Principle: The method capitalizes on a network (interactome) of known interactions between small-molecule ligands and their macromolecular targets. Learning from this network allows the model to generate novel molecules likely to possess desired bioactivity [7].

2. Experimental Procedure:

• Step 1: Interactome Construction. Compile a comprehensive graph network where nodes represent bioactive ligands and protein targets. Edges connect ligand-target pairs with a binding affinity stronger than a defined threshold (e.g., 200 nM) [7].
• Step 2: Model Architecture Setup. Implement a graph-to-sequence deep learning model combining a Graph Transformer Neural Network (GTNN) and a Long-Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network. The GTNN processes the 2D molecular graph of a input ligand, and the LSTM decodes this representation into a SMILES string of a new molecule [7].
• Step 3: Molecular Generation. Use the trained DRAGONFLY model to translate input ligand templates or their latent representations into novel SMILES strings. The generation can be conditioned on specific physicochemical properties [7].
• Step 4: Evaluation and Filtering. Screen generated molecules using a cascade of filters:
  • Synthesizability: Calculate the Retrosynthetic Accessibility Score (RAScore) [7].
  • Novelty: Quantify scaffold and structural novelty against known compounds using rule-based algorithms [7].
  • Predicted Bioactivity: Predict activity against the target of interest using pre-trained QSAR models (e.g., using ECFP4, CATS, and USRCAT descriptors with a Kernel Ridge Regression model) [7].

3. Data Interpretation: The top-ranking compounds are those that successfully pass the synthesizability and novelty filters and exhibit high predicted bioactivity. These molecules are prioritized for in silico validation and subsequent chemical synthesis and experimental testing [7].

Protocol 2: QSAR Modeling within an Active Learning Framework

This protocol describes building a QSAR model and embedding it within an active learning cycle to iteratively refine a generative model for de novo design [4].

1. Principle: A predictive QSAR model is used as an "oracle" to evaluate molecules generated by a generative model. The results from this oracle are used to fine-tune the generative model, creating a feedback loop that progressively steers molecular generation toward regions of chemical space with higher predicted activity [4].

2. Experimental Procedure:

• Step 1: Initial Data Curation. Assemble a congeneric series of ligands with experimentally measured biological activity (e.g., IC50, Ki) for the target of interest. Ensure adequate chemical diversity to capture a broad structure-activity relationship [28].
• Step 2: Molecular Descriptor Calculation. Compute relevant molecular descriptors for all compounds in the dataset. These can range from simple physicochemical properties (e.g., molecular weight, logP) to complex fingerprint-based descriptors (e.g., ECFP4, CATS) [28] [7].
• Step 3: Model Building and Validation.
  • Split the data into training and test sets.
  • Use algorithms like Partial Least Squares (PLS) or Bayesian Regularized Artificial Neural Networks (BRANN) to build a regression model linking descriptors to biological activity [28].
  • Validate the model's stability and predictive power using leave-one-out cross-validation or k-fold cross-validation. Calculate the cross-validated correlation coefficient (Q²) [28].
• Step 4: Integration in Active Learning.
  • The trained QSAR model serves as a fast, data-driven oracle for bioactivity prediction.
  • In an active learning cycle, a generative model (e.g., a Variational Autoencoder) produces new compounds [4].
  • These compounds are evaluated by the QSAR oracle. Those predicted to be active are added to a fine-tuning set.
  • The generative model is periodically retrained on this growing set of predicted actives, improving its ability to propose potent compounds in subsequent iterations [4].

3. Data Interpretation: The key outcome is a refined QSAR model with robust predictive accuracy (Q² > 0.6 is often considered acceptable). Within the active learning context, success is measured by the generative model's increasing efficiency in producing novel compounds with high predicted activity over successive iterations [28] [4].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated active learning workflow that combines de novo molecular generation with iterative model refinement using QSAR and other oracles.

Active Learning Workflow for de Novo Design

Performance Data & Benchmarking

The advancement of ligand-based methods is evidenced by their performance in generating novel, potent, and synthesizable molecules, as benchmarked against established methods and validated through experimental testing.

Table 1: Benchmarking Performance of DRAGONFLY vs. Fine-Tuned RNNs

Evaluation Metric	DRAGONFLY Performance	Fine-Tuned RNN Performance	Assessment Context
Synthesizability (RAScore)	Superior across most templates [7]	Lower comparative performance [7]	20 macromolecular targets [7]
Structural Novelty	Superior across most templates [7]	Lower comparative performance [7]	20 macromolecular targets [7]
Predicted Bioactivity	Superior across most templates [7]	Lower comparative performance [7]	20 macromolecular targets [7]
Experimental Validation	Potent PPARγ partial agonists identified [7]	Not Applicable	Crystal structure confirmed binding mode [7]

Table 2: Performance of an Active Learning GM Workflow on Specific Targets

Target	Training Data Context	Key Generative Result	Experimental Hit Rate
CDK2	Densely populated patent space [4]	Novel scaffolds with excellent docking scores [4]	8 out of 9 synthesized molecules showed in vitro activity (1 nanomolar) [4]
KRAS	Sparsely populated chemical space [4]	Diverse, drug-like molecules with high predicted affinity [4]	4 molecules identified with potential activity via in silico methods [4]

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

This section lists key computational tools and resources that form the backbone of modern, AI-driven ligand-based design.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Ligand-Based Design

Tool/Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Ligand-Based Design
DRAGONFLY	Deep Learning Model	Interactome-based de novo molecular generation for specific bioactivity [7].
Variational Autoencoder (VAE)	Generative AI Model	Learns a continuous latent representation of chemical space for molecule generation and optimization [4].
ECFP4/CATS/USRCAT	Molecular Descriptors	Numerical representation of molecular structure and pharmacophores for QSAR modeling and similarity search [7].
Kernel Ridge Regression (KRR)	Machine Learning Algorithm	Builds predictive QSAR models for bioactivity prediction, especially with multiple molecular descriptors [7].
Retrosynthetic Accessibility Score (RAScore)	Computational Metric	Evaluates the synthesizability of a computer-generated molecule [7].
BIOVIA Discovery Studio (CATALYST)	Software Suite	Provides comprehensive tools for pharmacophore modeling, 3D QSAR, and virtual screening [29].
Schrödinger LiveDesign	Collaborative Platform	A web-based platform for team-based molecular design, data management, and analysis that integrates various computational tools [30] [31].

The discovery of novel, potent inhibitors for high-value oncology targets like Cyclin-dependent kinase 2 (CDK2) and Kirsten rat sarcoma viral oncogene homolog (KRAS) represents a frontier in cancer therapeutics. CDK2 regulates cell cycle progression, and its dysregulation is implicated in various cancers, including breast and ovarian cancer [32]. KRAS mutations are prevalent oncogenic drivers in solid tumors, such as non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal adenocarcinoma [33]. Historically, KRAS was considered "undruggable" due to its structural intractability [34]. This case study explores how modern active learning frameworks and structure-based design are revolutionizing the de novo drug design workflow for these challenging targets, moving beyond traditional screening methods to a more dynamic, iterative discovery process.

Target Background and Therapeutic Rationale

CDK2: A Cell Cycle Regulator

CDK2 is a serine/threonine kinase that complexed with cyclins E and A, regulates the G1 to S phase transition of the cell cycle [32]. Overexpression or dysregulation of CDK2 is associated with aggressive cancer phenotypes. While no FDA-approved drugs specifically target CDK2 to date, it remains a high-value target because selective inhibition can potentially halt the proliferation of cancer cells addicted to CDK2 activity [35] [32]. The primary challenge has been designing inhibitors that are selective for CDK2 over other CDK family members (like CDK1) to minimize toxicity [35].

KRAS: A Challenging Oncogenic Target

The KRASG12C mutation (glycine to cysteine at codon 12) is a prevalent driver in NSCLC and colorectal cancer [33] [34]. This mutation locks KRAS in a constitutively active, GTP-bound state, leading to uncontrolled MAPK and PI3K signaling cascades that drive tumor growth [34]. The discovery of a cryptic switch-II pocket (S-IIP) present during GTP-GDP transition states enabled a new class of covalent inhibitors that exploit the mutant cysteine residue, breaking the "undruggable" paradigm [34]. A pressing current challenge is overcoming acquired resistance mutations, such as R68S, which can arise following treatment with first-generation KRASG12C inhibitors [33].

Application Note: CDK2 Inhibitor Discovery

Integrated Machine Learning andIn SilicoScreening

A recent multiscale screening study successfully integrated machine learning with computational chemistry to identify novel CDK2 inhibitor candidates [32]. Researchers developed a random forest (RF) classification model using 1,657 known CDK2 inhibitors from the ChEMBL database, achieving robust performance. This model was used to virtually screen a large library of 477,975 molecules, identifying 327 initial hits.

The subsequent workflow involved:

• PAINS Filtration: Removed compounds with pan-assay interference structures, refining the list to 309 molecules.
• Molecular Docking: Evaluated binding poses and interactions with key active site residues (Lys33, Asp145).
• ADMET Profiling: Assessed pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics properties.
• Quantum Mechanical Analyses: Performed Density Functional Theory (DFT) calculations to evaluate electronic properties and reactivity.
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) Simulations: Studied the stability and conformational flexibility of protein-ligand complexes.

This pipeline shortlisted three promising molecules with stable binding modes, good inhibitory potential, and favorable drug-like properties [32].

Novel Scaffold Identification via Generative AI

Another study employed a generative AI workflow featuring a variational autoencoder (VAE) nested within two active learning (AL) cycles [4]. This system was designed to optimize target engagement and synthetic accessibility while exploring novel chemical spaces. The workflow successfully generated novel, drug-like molecules for CDK2 with excellent predicted docking scores. From this effort, nine molecules were synthesized, of which eight showed in vitro activity, including one compound with nanomolar potency [4].

Quantitative Results for Novel CDK2 Inhibitors

The table below summarizes the experimental performance of recently discovered CDK2 inhibitor leads.

Table 1: Experimental Profiles of Novel CDK2 Inhibitor Leads

Compound ID	Core Scaffold	CDK2/Cyclin E1 IC50 (nM)	Cell Proliferation GI50 (μM)	Selectivity Index	Key Findings	Citation
8b	Cyclohepta[e]thieno[2,3-b]pyridine	0.77 nM	0.6 (MDA-MB-468)	Up to 7.98	~2.5x more potent than roscovitine; induces G1 phase arrest (78%) and apoptosis.	[36]
5	Cyclohepta[e]thieno[2,3-b]pyridine	3.92 nM	N/A	Up to 7.98	Induces G1 phase arrest (82%) and robust pro-apoptotic effect.	[36]
AVZO-021	Undisclosed	N/A	N/A	N/A	Potential best-in-class, selective CDK2 inhibitor; Phase 1 clinical results pending (Dec 2025).	[37]

Application Note: KRASG12C Inhibitor Discovery

Structure-Based Design to Overcome Resistance

Researchers have addressed KRAS inhibitor resistance through rational core scaffold engineering [33] [34]. A recent study replaced traditional bicyclic systems with a novel 6,8-difluoroquinazoline core. This strategic change aimed to optimize interactions within the switch-II pocket (SWII) and the adjacent hydrophobic pocket of KRASG12C.

The design process involved:

• Fragment Replacement: Systematic modification of molecular fragments based on structural alignment of known inhibitors (ARS-1620, MRTX849).
• Probing Key Interactions: Synthesis of analogues with diverse substitutions to explore the hydrophobic binding pocket.
• Incorporation of Pyrrolizidine: This moiety was found to enhance inhibition due to superior pKa characteristics, facilitating tertiary amine protonation in solvent-accessible regions [34].

This structure-based approach yielded compounds 19 and 20, which demonstrated superior cellular potency and, crucially, retained activity against the KRAS G12C/R68S resistance variant [33] [34].

QSAR-Guided Discovery and Machine Learning

A complementary computational study utilized Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship (QSAR) modeling to predict the inhibitory potency (pIC50) of novel KRAS inhibitors [38]. Researchers developed multiple machine learning models, including Partial Least Squares (PLS) and Random Forest (RF), using a dataset of 62 KRAS inhibitors from ChEMBL. The best model (PLS) achieved a high predictive performance (R² = 0.851). The model was then used for evolutionary de novo design, virtually screening 56 novel compounds and identifying a promising hit (C9) with a predicted pIC50 of 8.11 [38].

Quantitative Results for Novel KRASG12C Inhibitors

The table below summarizes the in vitro and in vivo performance of the leading KRASG12C inhibitor candidates.

Table 2: Experimental Profiles of Novel KRASG12C Inhibitor Leads

Compound ID	Core Scaffold	Cellular Potency (NCI-H358 IC50)	Activity vs R68S Mutant (Ba/F3 IC50)	Oral Bioavailability (F%)	In Vivo Efficacy (SW837 Xenograft, 30 mg/kg QD)	Citation
19	6,8-difluoroquinazoline	0.5 nM	29.8 nM	60.7%	Near-complete tumor regression (TGI = 103%)	[33] [34]
20	6,8-difluoroquinazoline	0.5 nM	5.4 nM	40.8%	Near-complete tumor regression (TGI = 103%)	[33] [34]
C9	De novo designed	pIC50 = 8.11 (Predicted)	N/A	N/A	Validated via in silico studies	[38]

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Inhibitor Discovery

Item	Function & Application in Workflow	Example Sources / Tools
ChEMBL Database	Public repository for bioactive molecules with drug-like properties; provides curated data for model training and SAR analysis.	[38] [32]
Molecular Descriptor Software (e.g., ChemoPy, DRAGON)	Calculates topological, constitutional, and quantum-chemical features from molecular structures for QSAR and machine learning.	[39] [38]
Generative AI & Active Learning Framework	Integrates a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) with nested active learning cycles to generate and optimize novel molecular structures.	[4]
Docking Software	Predicts the binding orientation and affinity of small molecules within the target's active site (e.g., CDK2 ATP pocket, KRAS S-IIP).	[4] [32]
ADMET Prediction Tools	In silico assessment of Absorption, Distribution, Metabolism, Excretion, and Toxicity (ADMET) properties for candidate prioritization.	[32]
Covalent Docking Protocols	Specialized molecular docking methods to model the formation of covalent bonds between inhibitors and target cysteines (e.g., KRAS G12C).	Implied in [34]

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Active Learning-Driven Molecular Generation

This protocol is adapted from the generative AI workflow integrating a Variational Autoencoder (VAE) with active learning (AL) cycles [4].

• Data Representation:

  • Represent training molecules as SMILES strings.
  • Tokenize the SMILES and convert them into one-hot encoding vectors for input into the VAE.

• Initial Model Training:

  • Pre-train the VAE on a general chemical dataset to learn viable chemical space.
  • Fine-tune the VAE on a target-specific training set (e.g., known CDK2 or KRAS inhibitors) to bias generation towards target engagement.

• Nested Active Learning Cycles:

  • Inner AL Cycle (Chemical Optimization):
    • Sample the VAE to generate new molecules.
    • Evaluate generated molecules using chemoinformatic oracles (drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, novelty).
    • Fine-tune the VAE on molecules that pass these filters, creating a temporal-specific set.
  • Outer AL Cycle (Affinity Optimization):
    • After several inner cycles, evaluate molecules in the temporal-specific set using a physics-based affinity oracle (e.g., molecular docking).
    • Transfer molecules with favorable docking scores to a permanent-specific set.
    • Fine-tune the VAE on this permanent set to further steer generation toward high-affinity candidates.

• Candidate Selection and Validation:

  • Apply stringent filtration to the final generated library.
  • Subject top candidates to more intensive simulations (e.g., PELE, Absolute Binding Free Energy calculations).
  • Select molecules for synthesis and experimental validation (e.g., enzymatic assays, cellular potency tests).

Protocol: Evaluating CDK2 InhibitorsIn Vitro

This protocol outlines key biological assays for characterizing novel CDK2 inhibitors [35] [36].

• CDK2/Cyclin E Enzymatic Inhibition Assay:

  • Purpose: Measure direct inhibition of kinase activity.
  • Procedure: Use a homogeneous time-resolved fluorescence (HTRF) or radiometric assay to quantify ATP consumption or substrate phosphorylation. Incubate the CDK2/Cyclin E complex with a range of inhibitor concentrations and appropriate substrates. Include a reference inhibitor (e.g., roscovitine) as control.
  • Data Analysis: Calculate IC50 values from dose-response curves.

• Cell-Based Cytotoxicity and Proliferation Assay:

  • Purpose: Determine anti-proliferative effects (GI50) in sensitive cancer cell lines (e.g., MDA-MB-468 for breast cancer).
  • Procedure: Plate cells and treat with a serial dilution of the inhibitor for 72-96 hours. Use an MTT or CellTiter-Glo assay to quantify cell viability.
  • Data Analysis: Calculate GI50 values, the concentration that causes 50% growth inhibition.

• Cell Cycle Analysis by Flow Cytometry:

  • Purpose: Confirm on-target mechanism by assessing G1 phase arrest.
  • Procedure: Treat asynchronous cells at their GI50 concentration for 24 hours. Fix, stain DNA with propidium iodide, and analyze using a flow cytometer.
  • Data Analysis: Quantify the percentage of cells in G1, S, and G2/M phases. A significant increase in the G1 population indicates successful CDK2 inhibition.

• Annexin V-FITC Apoptosis Assay:

  • Purpose: Evaluate the induction of programmed cell death.
  • Procedure: Stain treated cells with Annexin V-FITC and propidium iodide (PI). Analyze using flow cytometry to distinguish early apoptotic (Annexin V+/PI-), late apoptotic (Annexin V+/PI+), and necrotic (Annexin V-/PI+) cells.

The integration of active learning frameworks, generative AI, and rational structure-based design is fundamentally advancing the de novo design of inhibitors for challenging targets like CDK2 and KRAS. The case studies presented demonstrate that these approaches can successfully generate novel, potent, and selective chemical entities. For CDK2, this has yielded highly potent leads with nanomolar activity and promising in vitro profiles. For KRAS, innovative scaffold engineering has produced inhibitors with sub-nanomolar cellular potency and robust activity against resistant mutants, showcasing a viable path to overcome a major clinical hurdle. These modern workflows, which iteratively close the loop between computational prediction and experimental validation, are paving the way for a new generation of targeted cancer therapies.

The convergence of active learning (AL), automated computational workflows, and on-demand chemical libraries represents a paradigm shift in modern computational drug discovery. This approach directly addresses the critical bottleneck of efficiently navigating vast chemical spaces, such as the Enamine REAL database containing billions of purchasable compounds, to identify promising candidates for synthesis and testing [3]. By integrating AL cycles with structure-based molecular design tools, researchers can prioritize compounds with a higher predicted likelihood of success, significantly accelerating the hit identification and optimization process. This Application Note details the methodology and protocols for implementing an AL-driven workflow using the open-source FEgrow software package for the prioritization of compounds from on-demand libraries, using the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) as a test case [40] [3].

Background & Principles

The FEgrow Workflow

FEgrow is an open-source Python-based workflow designed for building user-defined congeneric series of ligands within protein binding pockets [41]. Its core functionality involves growing functional groups (R-groups) and linkers from a constrained ligand core of a known hit compound, leveraging prior structural biology data such as crystallographic fragments [41] [3]. The workflow consists of several key stages:

• Input and Conformer Generation: A ligand core and receptor structure are defined. FEgrow merges the core with user-defined R-groups and/or linkers, then generates an ensemble of 3D ligand conformations using RDKit's ETKDG algorithm, with atoms in the common core restrained to their initial positions [41].
• Geometry Optimization: Generated conformers are filtered to remove those clashing with the protein. The remaining structures are optimized within a rigid protein binding pocket using a hybrid Machine Learning/Molecular Mechanics (ML/MM) potential, where the ligand's intramolecular energetics are described by the ANI neural network potential and non-bonded interactions with the protein are handled by a classical force field like AMBER FF14SB [41] [3].
• Scoring: The binding affinities of the low-energy poses are predicted using scoring functions, such as the gnina convolutional neural network [41] [3].

Active Learning in Chemical Space Search

Active Learning is an iterative feedback process that maximizes information gain while minimizing resource-intensive evaluations [4]. In the context of molecular design, instead of exhaustively screening a entire virtual library, an AL cycle selects a small, informative subset of compounds for evaluation using a computationally expensive objective function (e.g., the FEgrow build-and-score process) [3]. The results from this batch are used to train or retrain a machine learning model, which then predicts the objective function for the remaining unexplored chemical space. The next batch is selected based on the model's predictions, focusing on areas most likely to contain high-scoring compounds or regions of high uncertainty, thereby improving the model's overall performance with each iteration [4] [3]. This approach has been shown to enrich hits compared to random or one-shot screening, making it highly efficient for searching combinatorial spaces of linkers and R-groups [3].

Integrated AL-FEgrow Workflow: Application Protocol

This protocol outlines the steps for implementing the integrated Active Learning and FEgrow workflow to prioritize compounds for a specific target.

Required Materials and Software

Table 1: Research Reagent Solutions and Essential Software

Item Name	Function/Application in the Workflow
FEgrow Software Package	Core open-source platform for building and optimizing ligands in the protein binding pocket. Available at https://github.com/cole-group/FEgrow [42].
R-group and Linker Libraries	User-defined or provided libraries of ~500 R-groups and 2000+ linkers for molecular growth [3].
On-demand Chemical Library	Database of purchasable compounds (e.g., Enamine REAL) to seed the chemical search space and ensure synthetic tractability [3].
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Source for the initial receptor structure and ligand core (fragment or hit compound) [41].
Machine Learning Model	A model (e.g., Random Forest, Gaussian Process) for the AL cycle to predict compound scores based on molecular features [3].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the integrated, iterative process of the AL-driven FEgrow workflow.

Workflow Overview Diagram: The integrated Active Learning and FEgrow process for compound prioritization.

Step-by-Step Experimental Protocol

Initialization and Setup

• Step 1.1: Install the FEgrow package and its dependencies from the official GitHub repository (https://github.com/cole-group/FEgrow). Full tutorials are available in the tutorials folder [42].
• Step 1.2: Prepare the input structures. Obtain a high-resolution protein structure (e.g., SARS-CoV-2 Mpro) from the PDB. Define a ligand core, which can be a fragment from a crystallographic screen or a known hit compound, and specify the hydrogen atom(s) that serve as the growth vector(s) [3].
• Step 1.3: Curate the chemical search space. Define the combinatorial library of R-groups and linkers to be explored. Optionally, seed this space by performing a substructure search of the Enamine REAL (or similar) on-demand library for compounds containing the rigid core, treating the remaining parts of these molecules as fully flexible R-groups/linkers for the workflow [3].

Active Learning Cycle Configuration

• Step 2.1: Select an initial, diverse subset of compounds (e.g., 50-100) from the defined chemical space for the first batch. Diversity can be ensured through random selection or algorithms like k-means clustering based on molecular fingerprints.
• Step 2.2: Choose a machine learning model for the AL cycle. A random forest model is a robust starting point due to its ability to handle non-linear relationships and provide uncertainty estimates [3].
• Step 2.3: Define the objective function for scoring. This is typically the output of the FEgrow workflow, which can be a standalone gnina docking score or a multi-parameter function that also incorporates properties like molecular weight or specific protein-ligand interactions (PLIP profiles) [3].
• Step 2.4: Set the convergence criteria. This could be a fixed number of AL cycles (e.g., 10-20), a performance plateau in the objective function, or exhaustion of a computational budget.

Iterative Active Learning Execution

• Step 3.1: FEgrow Evaluation: For each compound in the current batch, run the automated FEgrow workflow via its API [3]. This involves:
  • Merging the core with the specific R-group/linker combination.
  • Generating and optimizing 3D conformers in the binding pocket (using the hybrid ML/MM potential).
  • Scoring the final, lowest-energy pose(s) with the gnina CNN scorer.
• Step 3.2: Model Training and Prediction: Use the collected (compound structure, score) pairs from all evaluated batches to train (or retrain) the ML model. The model then predicts scores and associated uncertainties for all unevaluated compounds in the chemical space.
• Step 3.3: Batch Selection: Apply a selection strategy to choose the next batch of compounds for evaluation. Common strategies include:
  • Exploitation: Selecting compounds with the highest predicted scores.
  • Exploration: Selecting compounds with the highest prediction uncertainty.
  • Balanced: Using acquisition functions like Expected Improvement or Upper Confidence Bound that balance both exploitation and exploration [3].
• Step 3.4: Iteration and Termination: Repeat Steps 3.1 to 3.3 until the pre-defined convergence criteria are met. The output is a finalized list of prioritized compounds recommended for purchase and experimental testing.

Case Study & Validation: Targeting SARS-CoV-2 Mpro

Experimental Setup and Results

The integrated AL-FEgrow workflow was prospectively applied to design inhibitors of the SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease (Mpro) [3]. The chemical space consisted of combinations of linkers and R-groups from a user-defined vector. The workflow was seeded with compounds from the Enamine REAL database to ensure synthetic accessibility. After several cycles of active learning, the model prioritized compounds for purchase.

Table 2: Experimental Validation Results for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors

Metric	Result / Value
Total Compound Designs Ordered & Tested	19 [40] [3]
Compounds Showing Weak Activity	3 [40] [3]
Key Workflow Advantage	Identified molecules with high similarity to those discovered by the COVID Moonshot effort, using only initial fragment screen data in a fully automated fashion [3]

Discussion of Outcomes

This case study validates the practical utility of the AL-FEgrow workflow. The successful identification of active compounds demonstrates the workflow's ability to efficiently navigate a vast chemical space and prioritize synthetically accessible candidates using only initial structural information. The fact that the workflow autonomously generated compounds similar to those developed by a large, crowd-sourced consortium highlights its power and potential for accelerating early-stage drug discovery [3]. The study also noted that while active learning improved prioritization, there remains a need for further optimization of the scoring and selection functions to increase the hit rate, indicating a direction for future development [40].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item	Function in the Workflow	Source / Reference
FEgrow	Open-source core platform for molecular building and optimization in the binding pocket.	Cole Group, GitHub [42]
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit used by FEgrow for core operations like molecule merging and conformer generation.	RDKit Foundation [41]
OpenMM	Library for molecular simulation used by FEgrow for energy minimization.	Stanford University [41]
gnina	Convolutional neural network scoring function for binding affinity prediction.	[41] [3]
Enamine REAL Database	On-demand chemical library used to seed the search space with purchasable, synthetically tractable compounds.	Enamine Ltd. [3]
ANI-2x Neural Network Potential	Machine-learning potential used in the hybrid ML/MM optimization for accurate ligand energetics.	[41]
PLIP (Protein-Ligand Interaction Profiler)	Tool for analyzing non-covalent protein-ligand interactions; can be incorporated into the scoring function.	[3]

Optimizing AL Workflows: Tackling Scoring Functions, Exploration, and Synthesis

In the context of active learning for de novo drug design, the scoring function is the cornerstone of the entire workflow. It serves as the objective function that guides the computational exploration of the vast chemical space towards therapeutically viable, synthetically accessible, and pharmacologically sound molecules [8] [43]. The primary challenge lies in formulating a scoring function that accurately captures the complex, multi-faceted, and often competing goals of a drug discovery project. This application note details the central role of Multiparameter Optimization (MPO) and advanced reward elicitation techniques in designing these critical functions, providing structured protocols for their implementation within modern, active learning-driven research.

Multiparameter Optimization (MPO) in Scoring Functions

Multiparameter Optimization provides a structured framework for combining multiple, distinct molecular properties into a single, composable score, thereby enabling holistic compound optimization [8] [44].

Core Components of an MPO Framework

An effective MPO scoring function typically integrates several of the following components, each transformed via a desirability function that maps property values to a normalized score, typically between 0 and 1 [8].

Table 1: Key Components of a Multiparameter Optimization (MPO) Scoring Function

Property Category	Example Properties	Role in Scoring Function
Target Bioactivity	Binding affinity (e.g., pKi, IC₅₀), docking score, selectivity [45] [46]	Primary driver for efficacy; often has high weight.
ADMET Profile	Solubility, permeability (e.g., Caco-2), metabolic stability, toxicity predictions [43] [47]	Ensures pharmacokinetic suitability and reduces safety risks.
Physicochemical Properties	LogP, topological polar surface area (TPSA), molecular weight, number of rotatable bonds [8] [44]	Encodes drug-likeness and adherence to rules (e.g., Lipinski's).
Synthetic Feasibility	Synthetic accessibility (SA) score, retrosynthetic complexity [43]	Promotes molecules that can be practically synthesized.

The composite MPO score ( S{\text{MPO}} ) for a molecule ( m ) can be represented as a weighted product or sum of individual desirability functions ( di ) for each of ( N ) properties: [ S{\text{MPO}}(m) = \prod{i=1}^{N} [di(m)]^{wi} \quad \text{or} \quad \sum{i=1}^{N} wi \cdot di(m) ] where ( wi ) represents the relative weight or importance of the ( i )-th property [8] [44].

Protocol: Constructing a Baseline MPO Scoring Function

Objective: To create a initial MPO scoring function for prioritizing molecules in an early-stage drug discovery program.

Materials:

• Property Calculation Software: Tools like Schrodinger's Suite, OpenEye toolkits, or open-source packages (e.g., RDKit) for calculating physicochemical descriptors.
• ADMET Prediction Platforms: QSAR models available in platforms like DeepChem [47] or proprietary software for predicting absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion, and toxicity properties.
• Docking Software: Molecular docking programs such as Glide [46], AutoDock Vina, or GOLD for estimating binding affinity.

Procedure:

• Define Project Objectives: In consultation with project stakeholders, identify the key biological target and the primary optimization parameters (e.g., potency against a specific kinase, acceptable ADMET profile).
• Select Desirability Functions: For each parameter, define a desirability function ( d_i ).
  • For "less-is-better" properties (e.g., ClogP), use a decreasing function.
  • For "more-is-better" properties (e.g., solubility), use an increasing function.
  • For "target-is-best" properties (e.g., TPSA), use a bell-shaped function [8].
• Assign Initial Weights: Assign initial weights ( w_i ) to each property based on project priorities. These can be refined later through reward elicitation (Section 3).
• Implement and Validate: Code the composite scoring function and validate it by scoring a set of known active and inactive compounds. The function should rank known actives and desirable compounds higher.
• Integrate into Active Learning Loop: Deploy the MPO function as the reward signal within the active learning environment to guide the selection of molecules for the next cycle of evaluation [8] [47].

A predefined MPO function may not fully capture the nuanced preferences of experienced drug hunters. Reward elicitation, particularly through Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) approaches, addresses this by directly incorporating expert feedback to refine the scoring function [8] [43].

Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) Active Learning

HITL active learning closes the loop between computational generation and expert intuition.

Protocol: Interactive Reward Elicitation for MPO Refinement

Objective: To iteratively refine the weights and desirability functions of an MPO scoring function based on feedback from a medicinal chemist.

Materials:

• Molecular Generation Model: A generative model such as a Reinforcement Learning (RL)-based agent [8] [48] or a transformer [48].
• Candidate Pool: A set of molecules generated by the model for the expert to evaluate.
• Interaction Interface: A graphical user interface (GUI) that presents molecules and collects feedback [8].

Procedure:

• Initial Batch Generation: The generative model, guided by the initial MPO score, produces a batch of candidate molecules.
• Expert Feedback Cycle:
  • Presentation: A strategically selected subset of molecules from the batch is presented to the chemist via the GUI.
  • Feedback Collection: The chemist provides feedback on the presented molecules. This can be:
    • Relative: Comparing pairs of molecules (A/B preference) [48].
    • Absolute: Labeling molecules as "good" or "not good" [8].
    • Scalar: Providing a desirability score on a numerical scale.
• Model Update: The feedback is used to update a probabilistic model of the chemist's goal. For example:
  • In Task 1, feedback refines the parameters of the desirability functions in the MPO [8].
  • In Task 2, feedback is used to train a non-parametric surrogate model that can be added as a new component to the MPO [8].
• Scoring Function Update: The updated user model is used to adjust the scoring function for the next round of molecule generation.
• Iteration: Steps 1-4 are repeated until the generated molecules satisfactorily align with the chemist's expert judgment, typically within 100-200 feedback queries [8].

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) is an emerging powerful alternative to RL for incorporating preferences. It uses pairs of high- and low-scoring molecules to directly steer the generative model towards desired regions of chemical space without explicitly training a reward model, leading to greater training stability and efficiency [48].

Protocol: Implementing DPO for Molecular Optimization

Objective: To fine-tune a generative model using preference pairs derived from an MPO score or expert ranking.

Materials:

• Pre-trained Prior Model: A generative model (e.g., a GPT architecture) pre-trained on a large corpus of molecules like ZINC or ChEMBL [48].
• Preference Dataset: Pairs of molecules ( (m^+, m^-) ) where ( m^+ ) is preferred over ( m^- ) based on a high MPO score or expert opinion.

Procedure:

• Generate Candidate Molecules: Sample a large set of molecules using the pre-trained prior model.
• Create Preference Pairs: Score all generated molecules with the MPO function. For each molecule, create a pair with another molecule that has a significantly lower MPO score.
• DPO Fine-tuning: Fine-tune the prior model on these preference pairs by maximizing the likelihood difference between preferred and dispreferred molecules, using the DPO loss function [48].
• Iterate with Curriculum Learning: Integrate curriculum learning by starting with easier optimization tasks (e.g., optimizing a single property) and progressively moving to more complex multi-parameter optimization, which accelerates convergence and improves performance [48].

Addressing Key Challenges: Activity Cliffs and Uncertainty

Activity Cliff-Aware Optimization

Traditional scoring functions assume smooth structure-activity relationships (SAR), which leads to poor performance near activity cliffs—where small structural changes cause large changes in biological activity [45].

Solution: The Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning (ACARL) Framework

• Activity Cliff Index (ACI): A quantitative metric to identify activity cliff compounds by comparing structural similarity (e.g., Tanimoto similarity) with differences in biological activity (e.g., ( pK_i )) [45].
• Contrastive Loss in RL: Incorporates a tailored contrastive loss function within the RL process that amplifies learning from activity cliff compounds, forcing the model to focus on these high-impact SAR regions and generate molecules with targeted high affinity [45].

Active Learning for Uncertainty Quantification

In active learning, the scoring function is not only used for final evaluation but also to select the most informative molecules for which to acquire data (e.g., through expensive experimental assays or expert feedback) [49] [47].

Protocol: Batch Active Learning for Efficient Exploration

Objective: To select a diverse and informative batch of molecules for labeling in each cycle of an active learning campaign, maximizing model improvement with minimal resources.

Materials:

• Base Prediction Model: A deep learning model (e.g., graph neural network) for property prediction.
• Unlabeled Molecular Pool: A large library of molecules (e.g., Enamine REAL Space) with unknown target property values.

Procedure:

• Train Initial Model: Train the base model on a small, initially labeled dataset.
• Calculate Uncertainty and Diversity: For all molecules in the unlabeled pool, compute a covariance matrix ( C ) that captures both the uncertainty of predictions (variance) and the similarity between molecules (covariance) using methods like MC dropout or Laplace approximation (COVDROP/COVLAP) [47].
• Select Batch with Maximal Joint Entropy: Select a batch ( B ) of size ( b ) by iteratively choosing molecules that maximize the log-determinant of the corresponding submatrix ( C_B ). This ensures the batch is both uncertain and diverse [47].
• Acquire Labels and Update: The selected batch is "labeled" (e.g., by experiment or expert), added to the training set, and the model is retrained. The process repeats until a performance threshold is met.

Table 2: Benchmarking Results of Active Learning Strategies on Affinity Datasets (Recall of Top 2% Binders) [49] [47]

Active Learning Method	Key Principle	Performance Notes
Random Sampling	Baseline; no active selection	Lowest recall; slowest model improvement
k-Means Clustering	Diversity-based selection	Improves over random but overlooks uncertainty
BAIT	Fisher information maximization	Good performance, but less suited for deep nets
COVDROP/COVLAP	Maximizes joint entropy (ours)	Highest recall; fastest model improvement; optimal batch size ~20-30

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Computational Tools for MPO and Reward Elicitation

Tool Name / Category	Primary Function	Application in Workflow
Schrodinger Suite	Integrated drug discovery platform; Protein Prep, Glide docking, Active Learning Glide [46]	Structure-based virtual screening and initial scoring.
DeepChem	Open-source library for deep learning in drug discovery [47]	Building and benchmarking ADMET and affinity prediction models.
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit	Calculating molecular descriptors, fingerprints, and basic properties.
GROMACS	Molecular dynamics simulation package [46]	Refining binding poses and calculating stability metrics (e.g., for BPMD).
GuacaMol Benchmark	Benchmark suite for generative models [48]	Evaluating the performance of de novo design algorithms.
TDC (Therapeutics Data Commons)	Public dataset collection for drug discovery [44]	Accessing curated datasets for training and validating models.

The integration of sophisticated Multiparameter Optimization with dynamic reward elicitation methods represents a paradigm shift in the design of scoring functions for active learning-based drug design. Moving beyond static, pre-defined functions to adaptive, human-aware systems is critical for generating "beautiful" molecules—those that are therapeutically aligned, synthetically accessible, and ultimately successful in clinical development [43]. The protocols and strategies outlined herein provide a roadmap for researchers to implement these advanced techniques, thereby enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of their de novo molecular design workflows.

In de novo drug design, the core challenge of active learning can be framed as the exploration-exploitation dilemma. Exploration involves probing the vast chemical space to discover novel molecular scaffolds with potentially valuable bioactivity, thereby maximizing diversity. Exploitation, conversely, focuses on intensively optimizing known, promising lead compounds to enhance specific, desired properties such as binding affinity and selectivity [50]. A robust active learning workflow for drug design must dynamically balance these two competing objectives. Over-emphasizing exploitation can lead to premature convergence on local minima and a lack of chemical diversity, limiting the ultimate potential of a drug discovery campaign [51]. Conversely, excessive exploration can be computationally inefficient and may fail to yield compounds with sufficiently optimized drug-like properties [52]. This document provides detailed application notes and protocols for implementing strategies that effectively balance exploration and exploitation, framed within an active learning context for de novo drug design.

Conceptual Framework and Key Metrics

A Mean-Variance Framework for Diversity

A conceptual framework for analyzing the need for diverse solutions in goal-directed generation utilizes a mean-variance model. This framework bridges the optimization objective of goal-directed generation with the need for diverse solutions, and can be integrated within various goal-directed learning algorithms [51]. Within this framework:

• Exploitation is linked to optimizing the mean performance of generated candidates against a primary objective (e.g., binding affinity).
• Exploration is linked to managing the variance in the population of candidates, ensuring a diverse set of solutions is maintained to avoid local optima and cover a broader region of the chemical space.

Quantifying Exploration and Exploitation

The success of balancing strategies must be evaluated using quantitative metrics. The table below summarizes key performance indicators (KPIs) for assessing both exploration and exploitation.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Evaluating Exploration and Exploitation Performance

Category	Metric	Description	Interpretation in Drug Design
Exploration KPIs	Novelty / Uniqueness	Percentage of generated molecules not present in the training data or initial population [52].	Measures the ability to discover new chemical matter and avoid rediscovery.
	Scaffold Diversity	Number of unique Bemis-Murcko scaffolds or similar structural frameworks within a generated library [7].	Indicates breadth of explored chemical space and structural variety.
	Structural Novelty	Quantitative, rule-based algorithm capturing both scaffold and structural novelty [7].	A comprehensive measure of molecular uniqueness.
Exploitation KPIs	Property Optimization	Improvement in specific properties (e.g., ClogP, QED, SAS) [52] [7].	Measures success in optimizing drug-likeness and synthesizability.
	Predicted Bioactivity	pIC50 or binding affinity predicted by QSAR models (e.g., using ECFP4, CATS descriptors) [7].	Indicates potential potency against the intended target.
	Success Rate	Percentage of generated molecules achieving a desired multi-property profile [52].	Reflects efficiency in producing viable candidates.

Computational Strategies and Protocols

Several advanced computational strategies have been developed to explicitly address the exploration-exploitation trade-off.

Strategy 1: Disentangled β-Conditional Variational Autoencoder (β-CVAE)

This strategy utilizes a deep generative model for de novo design based on a molecular-graph β-CVAE.

Application Notes

• Objective: To generate novel molecules with optimized univariate or multivariate properties by empirically tuning the degree of disentanglement in the latent space [52].
• Mechanism: The β hyperparameter in the β-CVAE loss function controls the strength of the Kullback–Leibler (KL) divergence regularization. A lower β value reduces this constraint, leading to a less structured latent space and increased exploration (higher uniqueness of generated molecules). A higher β value enforces a more structured latent space, favoring exploitation and the optimization of specific properties like QED and synthetic accessibility score (SAS) [52].
• Outcome: The β-CVAE provides a mechanism to balance exploration and exploitation through disentanglement, making it a promising model for de novo drug design [52].

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 1: Implementing a β-CVAE for Molecular Generation

• Data Preparation:

  • Curate a dataset of bioactive molecules and their properties (e.g., from ChEMBL [7]).
  • Represent molecules as molecular graphs or SMILES strings.
  • Split data into training, validation, and test sets (e.g., 80/10/10).

• Model Setup & Training:

  • Implement a graph neural network or sequence-based encoder.
  • Define a conditional decoder capable of incorporating property constraints.
  • Use a loss function that includes the reconstruction loss and the β-weighted KL divergence term. A suggested starting value for β is 0.01, to be tuned empirically [52].
  • Train the model using an optimizer like Adam until validation loss converges.

• Generation & Tuning:

  • Exploration Phase: Sample from the prior distribution of the latent space or use a low β value to generate a diverse set of novel molecules.
  • Exploitation Phase: Use a higher β value or perform gradient-based optimization in the latent space towards regions corresponding to desired property values.
  • Validate generated structures for chemical validity using toolkits like RDKit.

Strategy 2: Deep Interactome Learning (DRAGONFLY)

This strategy combines graph neural networks and chemical language models without requiring application-specific reinforcement or transfer learning [7].

Application Notes

• Objective: To enable "zero-shot" construction of compound libraries tailored to possess specific bioactivity, synthesizability, and structural novelty by learning from a holistic drug-target interactome [7].
• Mechanism: The model (e.g., DRAGONFLY) uses a graph transformer neural network (GTNN) to process input graphs (either 2D molecular graphs for ligands or 3D graphs for protein binding sites). A graph-to-sequence model, often incorporating a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network, then translates this information into SMILES strings of novel molecules. This approach leverages information from both targets and ligands across multiple nodes in the interactome, inherently balancing the exploration of new chemical space with the exploitation of known bioactivity data [7].
• Outcome: This method has been prospectively validated, generating potent partial agonists for PPARγ with desired selectivity profiles, confirmed by crystal structure analysis [7].

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 2: Ligand-Based De Novo Design with DRAGONFLY

• Interactome Construction:

  • Build a graph where nodes represent bioactive ligands and their macromolecular targets.
  • Establish edges between ligands and proteins with a annotated binding affinity stronger than a threshold (e.g., ≤ 200 nM) [7].
  • This results in an interactome for ligand-based design containing ~360,000 ligands, 2,989 targets, and ~500,000 bioactivities [7].

• Model Architecture & Training:

  • Feature Encoding: Use a Graph Transformer Neural Network (GTNN) to encode the input molecular graph or protein binding site.
  • Sequence Generation: Employ an LSTM-based decoder as the graph-to-sequence model to generate SMILES strings.
  • Train the combined GTNN-LSTM model on the constructed interactome.

• Library Generation & Evaluation:

  • Input a ligand template or a 3D protein binding site structure.
  • Generate a virtual library of molecules.
  • Evaluate generated molecules using the metrics in Table 1, plus synthesizability (e.g., using RAScore [7]) and predicted bioactivity from QSAR models (e.g., Kernel Ridge Regression models using ECFP4 and CATS descriptors [7]).

Strategy 3: Human-Centered Two-Phase Search (HCTPS) Framework

This framework resolves the dilemma by decoupling exploration and exploitation into two distinct, human-guided phases [50].

Application Notes

• Objective: To maximize exploration without compromising the algorithm's exploitation potential by giving the designer central control over the search navigation [50].
• Mechanism: The search process is divided into:
  • Global Search Phase (Exploration): The algorithm (e.g., a canonical Genetic Algorithm) distributes its search across the entire feasible search space (I).
  • Local Search Phase (Exploitation): A sequence of selected sub-spaces ({I_i}) from the original search space undergoes further intensive, sequential exploration. The decision-maker dynamically directs this process using a Human-Centered Search Space Control Parameter (HSSCP), which is external to the core algorithm [50].
• Outcome: This framework enhances exploration while preserving the inherent robust exploitation capabilities of the underlying search algorithm, providing a scalable and generalizable solution [50].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the HCTPS framework integrated with a canonical Genetic Algorithm.

Experimental Protocol

Protocol 3: Implementing the HCTPS Framework with a Genetic Algorithm

• Global Search Phase Setup:

  • Encoding: Generate an initial population of potential solutions, encoding each as a chromosome (e.g., a binary string of fixed length L) [50].
  • Evaluation: Define a non-negative fitness function derived from the primary objective.
  • Evolution: Run the canonical GA cycle:
    • Selection: Assign selection probabilities based on fitness (e.g., roulette wheel selection).
    • Crossover: Apply crossover operators (e.g., single-point crossover) with a defined probability.
    • Mutation: Apply mutation operators (e.g., bit-flip) with a low probability.
  • Terminate the global phase after a fixed number of generations or when population diversity drops below a threshold.

• Local Search Phase Setup:

  • Human Intervention: The designer analyzes the results of the global phase and selects promising sub-spaces (I_i) for intensive exploration using the HSSCP [50].
  • Focused Search: For each selected sub-space I_i:
    • Initialize a new population within the bounds of I_i.
    • Run the GA with potentially adjusted parameters (e.g., higher mutation rate for fine-tuning, different operator probabilities) to intensively exploit this region.
    • Continue until convergence criteria for the sub-space are met.
  • Iterate sequentially through the selected sub-spaces.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details key computational tools and resources essential for implementing the described strategies.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Category / Item	Function / Description	Example Use Case
Chemical Databases
ChEMBL Database	A manually curated database of bioactive molecules with drug-like properties, containing quantitative bioactivity data [7].	Source of training data for building interactomes and pre-training generative models.
Molecular Representations
SMILES Strings	A line notation for representing molecular structures as strings [7].	Standard input/output for sequence-based generative models (e.g., LSTM in DRAGONFLY).
Molecular Graphs (2D/3D)	Representation of molecules as graphs with atoms as nodes and bonds as edges [7].	Input for graph neural networks (e.g., GTNN in DRAGONFLY, β-CVAE).
Property Prediction & Evaluation
QSAR Models (e.g., KRR with ECFP4/CATS)	Machine learning models to predict quantitative structure-activity relationships for bioactivity prediction [7].	Rapid virtual screening of generated libraries for predicted potency.
RAScore	A retrosynthetic accessibility score to assess the feasibility of synthesizing a given molecule [7].	Evaluating and filtering generated molecules for synthesizability.
Algorithmic Frameworks
Canonical Genetic Algorithm (GA)	A population-based optimization algorithm inspired by natural selection [50].	Core search engine in the HCTPS framework and other evolutionary algorithms.
Graph Transformer Neural Network (GTNN)	A neural network architecture adept at processing graph-structured data [7].	Encoding molecular graphs or protein binding sites in interactome learning.
Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Network	A type of recurrent neural network capable of learning long-term dependencies in sequence data [7].	Decoding latent representations or graph encodings into SMILES strings.

Successfully balancing exploration and exploitation is paramount for generating candidate molecules that are both novel and possess high-affinity, drug-like properties. The strategies outlined herein—the disentangled β-CVAE, the interactome-based DRAGONFLY, and the human-centered HCTPS framework—provide distinct yet powerful methodological pathways to achieve this balance. Integrating these protocols into an active learning loop for de novo drug design, where generated candidates are prioritized for synthesis and testing, and the resulting data is used to refine the models, will create a robust, iterative, and efficient drug discovery workflow. The provided application notes, protocols, and toolkit serve as a foundation for researchers to implement and adapt these strategies to their specific targets and challenges.

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into de novo drug design has transformed molecular optimization, yet a significant bottleneck remains: effectively capturing and incorporating the implicit knowledge and strategic goals of medicinal chemists. Active learning workflows, which iteratively refine models based on newly acquired data, provide a powerful framework for this integration. Within this context, human-in-the-loop (HITL) approaches close the critical gap between algorithmic molecular generation and the nuanced, experiential knowledge of human experts [22]. By enabling continuous feedback, these systems allow the drug designer's intent to directly shape the exploration of chemical space, moving beyond the traditional, laborious cycle of manually tuning scoring functions through trial and error [22] [53].

A principal challenge in de novo design is that a chemist's goal is often complex and difficult to articulate as a fixed computational function. It can involve conflicting objectives, qualitative notions of "drug-likeness," and synthetic feasibility considerations that are hard to quantify [22]. The HITL paradigm addresses this by using active learning to intelligently query the expert, transforming their subjective feedback into a refined, dynamic scoring function. This article details the application notes and protocols for implementing such HITL systems, providing researchers and drug development professionals with the methodologies to harness human expertise for more efficient and targeted molecular optimization.

Application Scenarios and Technical Approaches

The implementation of HITL feedback can be structured around several core technical tasks. The following sections outline two primary scenarios and the quantitative performance achieved by current state-of-the-art methods.

Key Application Scenarios

• Task 1: Learning Multiparameter Optimization (MPO) Parameters In this scenario, the chemist defines a set of molecular properties to optimize (e.g., solubility, metabolic stability) and their relative weights. The system's goal is to infer the precise desirability functions for each property—that is, which property values are considered "good" [22]. The algorithm starts with an initial guess of these desirable value intervals and actively refines them based on the chemist's feedback on generated molecules. This process directly learns the parameters of the composite scoring function used in the molecular generator.

• Task 2: Building a Non-Parametric Scoring Component This task focuses on creating a chemist-specific scoring component for a single molecular property, which can later be incorporated into a larger MPO function [22]. The chemist provides feedback on molecules with respect to a specific, often hard-to-quantify property (e.g., "synthetic accessibility" or "drug-likeness"). The system uses this feedback to train a non-parametric predictive model that generalizes the chemist's implicit knowledge to new, unseen molecules.

• Integrated HITL Platforms Newer platforms, such as the HIL-DD framework, provide a user-friendly interface for experts to infuse their experience by selecting generated molecules that meet their criteria or discarding those that do not [53]. The core generative technology in HIL-DD utilizes an Equivariant Rectified Flow Model (ERFM), which offers faster generation speeds than conventional diffusion models, thereby enabling more efficient human-AI collaboration [53].

Table 1: Summary of Key Human-in-the-Loop Approaches in Drug Design

Approach Name	Core Methodology	Primary Application	Key Advantage
Principled HITL (HITL-MPO) [22]	Probabilistic user-modeling & active learning	Inferring MPO desirability function parameters	Replaces manual trial-and-error tuning of scoring functions
HIL-DD Framework [53]	Equivariant Rectified Flow & user interface	General-purpose expert-AI collaboration for molecule design	Fast generation speed and smooth user interaction
Generative Active Learning (GAL) [54]	Reinforcement Learning (REINVENT) & physics-based oracles	Optimizing binding affinity with high-fidelity simulations	Combines generative AI with reliable physics-based scoring
VAE with Nested AL [4]	Variational Autoencoder & nested active learning cycles	Generating novel, synthesizable, high-affinity leads	Balances novelty, synthetic accessibility, and target engagement

Performance of HITL Systems

Empirical studies and simulated用例 (use cases) have demonstrated the effectiveness of HITL systems. With a focused strategy for selecting molecules for user feedback, significant improvement in matching the chemist's goal can be achieved in less than 200 feedback queries for objectives such as optimizing for a high QED score or identifying potent molecules for the DRD2 receptor [22].

The integration of generative AI with active learning has shown remarkable results in prospective experimental validation. For instance, one GM workflow incorporating nested active learning cycles was used to design molecules for the CDK2 target. From this process, nine molecules were synthesized, yielding eight with in vitro activity, including one with nanomolar potency [4]. This demonstrates the real-world potential of such approaches to accelerate the discovery of viable lead compounds.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Selected AI-Driven Drug Design Methods

Method / Framework	Reported Accuracy / Success Rate	Key Metric	Context / Target
optSAE + HSAPSO [55]	95.52%	Classification Accuracy	Drug classification & target identification
VAE with Nested AL [4]	8 out of 9 molecules	Experimental Hit Rate	Synthesized molecules with in vitro activity for CDK2
GAL Protocol [54]	Finds higher-scoring molecules	Binding Affinity	Superior to baseline surrogate model (3CLpro, TNKS2)

Experimental Protocols

This section provides a detailed, step-by-step methodology for implementing a human-in-the-loop active learning cycle for molecular optimization.

Protocol: Human-in-the-Loop Refinement of MPO Scoring Functions

Objective: To iteratively refine a multiparameter optimization (MPO) scoring function based on expert feedback, aligning the molecular generation process with the implicit goals of a medicinal chemist.

Materials:

• A generative molecular AI model (e.g., REINVENT [54], a Variational Autoencoder [4], or an Equivariant Rectified Flow Model [53]).
• An initial set of molecular properties and weights defined by the chemist.
• A computational environment capable of calculating the relevant molecular properties.
• A pool of unlabeled molecules generated by the AI model.
• A human expert (e.g., a medicinal chemist).

Procedure:

• Initialization: a. The chemist defines the set of K molecular properties, ({c}{k}(x)), to be optimized (e.g., LogP, molecular weight, QED, predicted affinity) [22]. b. The chemist assigns initial weights for each property and provides an initial guess for the desirability function, ({\phi }{k}), for each property, specifying which value ranges are desirable.

• Molecular Generation: a. The generative AI model produces a large pool of novel molecular structures.

• Active Learning Query Selection: a. An acquisition function is applied to the generated pool to select a small, informative batch of molecules for expert evaluation. b. The selection strategy should balance exploration (selecting molecules the model is uncertain about to learn the desirability function better) and exploitation (selecting molecules predicted to be high-scoring) [22] [54]. Strategies like Thompson sampling or upper confidence bound algorithms are applicable here [22].

• Expert Feedback Elicitation: a. Present the selected batch of molecules to the chemist via a user interface [53]. b. The chemist provides feedback on each molecule. This can be: i. Binary: "Good" or "Not good" [53]. ii. Relative Ranking: Ranking several molecules from most to least preferred. iii. Direct Scoring: Providing a numerical score based on their expert assessment.

• Model Update (Scoring Function Refinement): a. For Task 1 (MPO Parameter Learning): Use the collected feedback to update the probabilistic model of the desirability function parameters, ({\phi}_{r,t,k}), for each property. Bayesian inference is typically used for this update, which also captures the uncertainty in the estimated parameters [22]. b. For Task 2 (Non-Parametric Model): Use the feedback as labeled data to train or fine-tune a predictive model (e.g., a neural network) that outputs a score for the property of interest [22].

• Generative Model Update: a. The refined scoring function (the updated MPO or the new predictive model) is integrated into the generative AI model. b. In reinforcement learning-based generators like REINVENT, this updated function becomes the new reward signal [54]. In other architectures, such as VAEs, it can be used to fine-tune the model on the molecules highly rated by the expert [4].

• Iteration: a. Repeat steps 2-6 for a predetermined number of cycles or until convergence (e.g., when the expert consistently approves of the generated molecules, or performance plateaus).

The following workflow diagram illustrates this iterative protocol:

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

The successful implementation of a HITL drug design workflow relies on a suite of computational tools and platforms. The following table details key components.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions for HITL Drug Design

Tool / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Workflow
REINVENT [54]	Generative AI Software	A reinforcement learning-based platform for de novo molecular generation and optimization.
Equivariant Rectified Flow (ERFM) [53]	Generative AI Model	A core generative technology offering fast 3D molecular generation for efficient human-AI collaboration.
ChemProp [54]	Machine Learning Tool	A directed message-passing neural network (D-MPNN) for building accurate property prediction models (surrogate models).
ESMACS [54]	Molecular Simulation Method	An enhanced sampling molecular dynamics protocol used as a high-fidelity "oracle" for predicting absolute binding free energies.
Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [4]	Generative AI Model	A generative model that creates a structured latent space, suitable for integration with active learning cycles.
HIL-DD Platform [53]	Software Framework	An integrated platform with a user-friendly interface designed specifically for human-in-the-loop drug design.

Visualization of Workflows and System Relationships

To further clarify the architecture of a complex, nested active learning system, the following diagram outlines the workflow that integrates a generative model with multiple cycles of evaluation and feedback.

In the field of de novo drug design, one of the most significant challenges is navigating complex structure-activity relationships (SAR), particularly activity cliffs—phenomena where minute structural modifications to a molecule result in drastic changes in biological activity [45]. These cliffs represent critical discontinuities in the SAR landscape that conventional molecular generative models often overlook, treating them as statistical outliers rather than informative events that can guide optimization [45]. The inability to properly model these relationships severely limits the effectiveness of AI-driven drug discovery pipelines, as it hinders the exploration of high-impact regions in chemical space.

The contrastive learning paradigm offers a transformative approach to this challenge by explicitly modeling the relationships between molecular pairs exhibiting divergent activities despite structural similarity. Unlike traditional methods that treat samples independently, contrastive frameworks leverage comparative information to help models distinguish between subtle structural features that confer significant pharmacological advantages [56]. When integrated with reinforcement learning (RL), this approach enables targeted exploration of chemical space, steering molecular generation toward regions with optimized properties while effectively navigating activity landscapes [45]. The Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning (ACARL) framework exemplifies this integration, demonstrating that the conscious incorporation of SAR principles into generative models substantially enhances their ability to produce high-affinity drug candidates across multiple protein targets [45].

Key Methodological Framework: ACARL

The ACARL framework introduces two fundamental technical innovations that enable effective activity cliff awareness in de novo molecular design [45].

Activity Cliff Index (ACI)

The Activity Cliff Index (ACI) provides a quantitative metric for identifying activity cliffs within molecular datasets. This index captures the intensity of SAR discontinuities by comparing structural similarity with differences in biological activity [45]. The ACI enables systematic detection of compounds exhibiting activity cliff behavior, addressing a critical gap in conventional molecular generation pipelines.

Table: Molecular Similarity and Activity Measurement Criteria for ACI Calculation

Aspect	Measurement Approach 1	Measurement Approach 2
Molecular Similarity	Tanimoto similarity between molecular structure descriptors [45]	Matched molecular pairs (MMPs) - compounds differing only at a single substructure [45]
Biological Activity	Inhibitory constant (K(_i)) [45]	pK(i) = -log({10})K(_i) [45]
Relationship to Docking	Docking score (ΔG) = RTlnK(_i), where R=1.987 cal·K(^{-1})·mol(^{-1}), T=298.15K [45]	Lower K(_i) indicates higher activity, as does docking score [45]

Contrastive Loss in Reinforcement Learning

ACARL incorporates a specialized contrastive loss function within the RL framework that actively prioritizes learning from activity cliff compounds [45]. This function emphasizes molecules with substantial SAR discontinuities, shifting the model's focus toward regions of high pharmacological significance [45]. Unlike traditional RL methods that often weigh all samples equally, this tailored approach enhances ACARL's ability to generate molecules aligning with complex SAR patterns observed with real-world drug targets [45].

Experimental Protocols and Implementation

Protocol: Implementing ACARL for Targeted Molecular Generation

Objective: Generate novel molecular structures with optimized binding affinity for a specific protein target while explicitly modeling activity cliffs.

Materials and Computational Requirements:

• Molecular dataset with bioactivity annotations (e.g., from ChEMBL)
• Structure-based docking software (e.g., AutoDock Vina, Glide)
• Python environment with deep learning libraries (PyTorch/TensorFlow)
• Chemical representation tools (RDKit, DeepChem)
• Transformer-based architecture for sequence generation

Procedure:

• Data Preparation and ACI Calculation

  • Curate a molecular dataset with validated bioactivity measurements (IC({50}), K(i), etc.) for the target of interest
  • Compute pairwise Tanimoto similarities using molecular fingerprints (ECFP4 or similar)
  • Calculate the Activity Cliff Index for molecular pairs using the formula: [ \text{ACI} = \frac{|\Delta \text{Activity}|}{\text{Structural Similarity}} ]
  • Identify activity cliff compounds exceeding a predetermined ACI threshold

• Model Architecture Setup

  • Implement a transformer decoder model for SMILES string generation
  • Initialize with a pre-trained chemical language model if available
  • Define the policy network π(a|s) for action selection in sequence generation
  • Configure the value network for advantage estimation in policy gradient methods

• Reinforcement Learning with Contrastive Loss

  • Define the reward function incorporating docking scores and synthetic accessibility metrics
  • Implement the contrastive loss component that amplifies learning signals from activity cliff compounds: [ \mathcal{L}_{\text{contrastive}} = -\log\frac{\exp(f(xi)^T f(xj^+)/\tau)}{\sum{k=1}^N \exp(f(xi)^T f(xk)/\tau)} ] where (xj^+) are activity cliff compounds and (x_i) is the current generated molecule
  • Combine with standard policy gradient loss: [ \mathcal{L}_{\text{total}} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{PG}} + \lambda \mathcal{L}_{\text{contrastive}} ] where (\lambda) controls the influence of the contrastive component

• Training and Evaluation

  • Train the model using proximal policy optimization (PPO) or similar RL algorithm
  • Monitor generation quality through validity, uniqueness, and novelty metrics
  • Evaluate top-generated compounds using molecular docking against the target
  • Compare performance against baseline models without contrastive loss component

Protocol: Active Learning for Dataset Curation (Complementary Approach)

Objective: Efficiently curate diverse, non-redundant molecular datasets for training robust activity cliff-aware models.

Materials:

• Large molecular database (e.g., ZINC, ChEMBL, QDπ dataset [57])
• Multiple ML potential models for committee-based uncertainty estimation
• DP-GEN software for active learning implementation [57]

Procedure:

• Initialization

  • Select initial diverse molecular structures from source databases
  • Train 4 independent ML models with different random seeds as the committee

• Uncertainty Estimation

  • For each candidate structure in the source database, compute energy and force standard deviations between committee models
  • Apply thresholds (0.015 eV/atom for energy, 0.20 eV/Å for forces) to identify informative samples [57]

• Batch Selection

  • Select a random subset of up to 20,000 structures exceeding uncertainty thresholds
  • Calculate ab initio reference data (ωB97M-D3(BJ)/def2-TZVPPD level theory recommended) [57]
  • Incorporate labeled structures into the training dataset

• Iterative Refinement

  • Retrain models on the expanded dataset
  • Repeat until all candidate structures fall below uncertainty thresholds or computational budget exhausted

Table: Evaluation Metrics for Activity Cliff-Aware Models

Metric Category	Specific Metrics	Target Performance
Generation Quality	Validity, uniqueness, novelty, synthesizability (RAscore)	>90% validity, >80% uniqueness for novel scaffolds [7]
Pharmacological Profile	Molecular weight, lipophilicity (MolLogP), polar surface area, hydrogen bond donors/acceptors	Strong correlation with desired properties (r ≥ 0.95) [7]
Performance Validation	Docking scores, QSAR predictions, experimental binding affinity	Superior to known active compounds; >70% high-affinity candidates [56]
SAR Modeling	Activity cliff identification accuracy, prediction robustness on cliff compounds	Significant improvement over baseline models in cliff regions [45]

Research Reagent Solutions

Table: Essential Computational Tools for Contrastive Learning in Drug Design

Tool Category	Specific Resources	Application Function
Molecular Datasets	QDπ dataset [57], ChEMBL [45], PD-L1 inhibitor set [56]	Provides curated molecular structures with bioactivity data for training and benchmarking
Active Learning Platforms	DP-GEN [57], DeepChem [58]	Enables efficient dataset curation and model training with uncertainty estimation
Deep Learning Frameworks	PyTorch, TensorFlow with RL extensions	Implements transformer architectures, reinforcement learning, and contrastive loss functions
Chemical Representation	RDKit, SMILES-based tokenizers, Graph neural networks	Converts molecular structures to machine-readable formats for model input
Validation & Evaluation	Molecular docking software, QSAR models, RAScore [7]	Assesses generated compounds for binding affinity, synthesizability, and drug-likeness
Specialized Models	DRAGONFLY [7], VECTOR+ [56], ACARL [45]	Provides pre-implemented frameworks for specific molecular generation tasks

Workflow Visualization

Activity Cliff-Aware Molecular Generation Workflow

Active Learning for Dataset Curation

In modern de novo drug design, generative artificial intelligence (AI) models can rapidly propose novel target molecules. However, a significant bottleneck remains: ensuring that these computationally designed molecules are practically synthesizable and not merely theoretical constructs [59] [4]. The failure to account for synthetic accessibility can grind the drug discovery pipeline to a halt, wasting valuable computational and experimental resources. This Application Note details a robust protocol for integrating two critical components—AI-driven retrosynthetic analysis and seeding with purchasable compound libraries—into an active learning framework for de novo design. This integration ensures that the generative process is continuously guided and constrained by real-world synthetic feasibility and the commercial availability of key building blocks, thereby dramatically increasing the efficiency of translating digital designs into tangible, testable drug candidates.

The following table catalogues the key computational tools, data resources, and compound libraries essential for implementing the described workflow.

Table 1: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Integrated De Novo Design

Item Name	Function/Description	Example/Source
Retrosynthesis Software	AI-driven tools for predicting synthetic pathways for target molecules.	RetroExplainer [60], Synthia [61]
Purchasable Compound Libraries	Extensive collections of commercially available chemicals used to seed and constrain the generative process.	Enamine REAL Database [3], TargetMol FDA-Approved & Pharmacopeia Drug Library [62], MCE Screening Libraries [63]
Active Learning Platform	Software that iteratively selects compounds for evaluation to maximize model learning and efficiency.	FEgrow [3], Custom VAE-AL workflows [4]
Target-Specific Training Set	A collection of molecules with known activity or binding data for a specific protein target.	Public databases (e.g., ChEMBL) or proprietary assay data [4] [58]
Cheminformatic Oracles	Computational filters for evaluating drug-likeness, synthetic accessibility, and structural novelty.	Rules-based filters (e.g., Lipinski's Rule of 5), SAscore [4]
Physics-Based Affinity Oracle	A structure-based method for predicting the binding affinity of generated molecules to the target.	Molecular docking simulations, Free energy calculations [4] [3]

Computational Setup and Data Preparation

Software and Hardware Requirements

The protocols herein utilize open-source and commercially available software. Key platforms include FEgrow for structure-based ligand building and active learning integration [3] and RetroExplainer or similar tools (e.g., Synthia) for interpretable retrosynthesis planning [60] [61]. For handling large-scale compound libraries and running deep learning models, a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster or equivalent workstation with substantial CPU/GPU resources is recommended [3].

Library Curation and Seeding

Initiate the workflow by sourcing a diverse collection of purchasable building blocks. The Enamine REAL database (over 5.5 billion compounds) is a prime resource for this purpose [3]. For a more focused, drug-like starting point, smaller curated libraries such as the TargetMol Drug Repurposing Compound Library (5,120 approved and clinical drugs) are highly effective [64]. These libraries provide the foundational chemical space from which the active learning algorithm can draw and elaborate upon. The structural diversity and commercial availability of these compounds are critical for ensuring the synthesizability of the final designs [64] [62].

Protocol 1: Retrosynthetic Analysis for Synthetic Accessibility Assessment

This protocol outlines the use of an interpretable deep learning framework, RetroExplainer, to perform single- and multi-step retrosynthetic analysis on candidate molecules generated by a de novo design algorithm. The objective is to evaluate synthetic feasibility and identify viable synthetic pathways [60].

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Input Preparation: Export the candidate molecule(s) generated by the de novo AI in a standard chemical format (e.g., SMILES).
• Model Configuration: Configure RetroExplainer or a similar tool using its pre-trained models on large-scale reaction datasets (e.g., USPTO-50K, USPTO-FULL) [60].
• Single-Step Prediction: Execute the model to predict precursor molecules for the target. RetroExplainer formulates this as a molecular assembly process, providing a quantitative and interpretable energy decision curve for each predicted retrosynthetic action [60].
• Pathway Validation: For promising candidates, initiate multi-step retrosynthesis planning. This involves iteratively applying single-step prediction to the precursors until readily available or purchasable starting materials are identified.
• Route Ranking and Selection: Rank the proposed synthetic routes based on criteria such as:
  • The number of synthetic steps.
  • The commercial availability of proposed precursors (cross-reference with libraries in Table 1).
  • The model's confidence score for each retrosynthetic step [60] [61].

Validation and Metrics

The performance of retrosynthesis tools can be evaluated using top-k exact-match accuracy, which measures the percentage of test reactions for which the model correctly identifies the known reactants within its top k predictions. For instance, RetroExplainer achieved a top-1 accuracy of 54.8% and a top-5 accuracy of 78.3% on the USPTO-50K benchmark dataset under known reaction type conditions, outperforming many state-of-the-art methods [60]. Furthermore, pathway validity can be assessed by searching for literature precedents for the proposed single-step reactions; one study reported 86.9% of predicted single-step reactions corresponded to reported reactions [60].

Protocol 2: Active Learning with Purchasable Library Seeding

This protocol describes the integration of purchasable compound libraries into an active learning-driven de novo design workflow, using the FEgrow package as a representative example. This approach seeds the generative chemical space with synthetically tractable fragments and R-groups, ensuring that designed compounds remain close to commercially accessible chemical space [3].

Step-by-Step Methodology

• Initialization: Start with a protein structure and a known ligand core or fragment hit from a crystallographic screen. Define the growth vector(s) on the core.
• Chemical Space Seeding: Instead of generating fully novel structures de novo, FEgrow builds compounds by elaborating the core with a user-defined library of purchasable linkers and R-groups. This library can be sourced from on-demand databases like the Enamine REAL database [3].
• Active Learning Cycle:
  • Build and Score: FEgrow automatically builds the ligands in the protein binding pocket, optimizes their poses using hybrid ML/MM potential energy functions, and scores them using an objective function (e.g., gnina docking score, PLIP interaction profiles) [3].
  • Model Training: The scored compounds are used to train a machine learning model (e.g., a random forest regressor) that learns to predict the scoring function output based on molecular features.
  • Batch Selection: The trained model predicts scores for all remaining compounds in the purchasable library. An acquisition function (e.g., expected improvement) selects the next batch of compounds for evaluation by FEgrow, prioritizing those predicted to be high-value.
  • Iteration: The cycle repeats, with the model being retrained on an increasingly informative dataset, efficiently guiding the search toward high-affinity, synthetically accessible compounds [3].

Validation and Metrics

The success of the active learning protocol is measured by its enrichment and efficiency. Key metrics include the hit rate (the percentage of tested compounds showing activity) achieved after a fixed number of design-test cycles compared to random selection. For example, active learning has been shown to achieve 5–10× higher hit rates than random selection in discovering synergistic drug combinations [58]. The efficiency is demonstrated by identifying potent compounds after evaluating only a small fraction of the total available chemical space [3].

Integrated Workflow: Coupling Generative AI with Synthetic Constraints

The full power of this methodology is realized when the two protocols are integrated into a single, automated workflow, creating a self-improving cycle for drug design.

Diagram 1: Integrated de novo design workflow.

The workflow operates as follows: A generative AI model (e.g., a Variational Autoencoder) proposes novel candidate molecules [4]. These candidates are immediately subjected to Protocol 1 for rapid retrosynthetic analysis. The results of this analysis—identifying feasible disconnections and purchasable precursors—are fed back to inform and constrain the subsequent generative steps. Concurrently, Protocol 2 uses these purchasable precursors to seed the active learning process, ensuring that the AI elaborates upon real, available chemistry. This creates a closed-loop system where the generative model is continuously steered toward regions of chemical space that are both biologically relevant and synthetically accessible.

Case Study: Application to SARS-CoV-2 Main Protease

A prospective application of this integrated approach targeted the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) [3]. Researchers used FEgrow in an active learning cycle, seeded with compounds from the Enamine REAL database, to design novel inhibitors based on a fragment hit from a crystallographic screen.

Table 2: Key outcomes from the SARS-CoV-2 Mpro case study [3]

Metric	Result	Implication
Compounds Designed & Prioritized	19	The workflow efficiently narrowed down a vast chemical space to a manageable number for experimental testing.
Compounds Showing Activity	3	The protocol successfully identified genuinely bioactive molecules, validating the computational approach.
Similarity to Known Moonshot Hits	High similarity for several designs	The automated workflow was able to independently rediscover key chemotypes identified by large-scale collaborative efforts.

The study demonstrated that the active learning-driven workflow, grounded in purchasable chemical space, could rapidly and automatically generate viable, active inhibitors, showcasing the practical utility of the integrated protocol [3].

The integration of retrosynthetic analysis and purchasable library seeding within an active learning framework represents a significant advancement in de novo drug design. This methodology directly addresses the critical challenge of synthetic accessibility, bridging the gap between in silico innovation and practical laboratory synthesis. By adopting the detailed protocols outlined in this Application Note, researchers can construct a more efficient and reliable drug discovery pipeline, increasing the throughput of viable lead compounds and accelerating the journey from concept to clinic.

Prospective Validation and Performance Benchmarks of AL Frameworks

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and active learning paradigms is transforming de novo drug design, enabling a more efficient exploration of chemical space. This application note documents contemporary, experimentally validated success stories where computational designs were successfully synthesized and demonstrated in vitro biological activity. We focus on three case studies that exemplify the power of modern AI-driven workflows, providing detailed protocols and key resources to facilitate the adoption of these methodologies.

Case Studies in AI-DrivenDe NovoDesign

The following case studies, summarized in Table 1, highlight successful transitions from in-silico design to experimentally confirmed active molecules.

Table 1: Summary of Experimentally Validated AI-Driven Drug Design Campaigns

Case Study	Target	Key AI/Design Technology	Experimental Validation: In Vitro Activity	Timeline & Key Achievement
ISM001-055 (Insilico Medicine) [65]	Novel intracellular target for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis	End-to-end AI platform (PandaOmics for target discovery, Chemistry42 for generative chemistry)	Nanomolar (nM) IC50 in enzymatic assays; activity in bleomycin-induced mouse lung fibrosis model [65]	~30 months from target discovery to Phase I trial [65]
VAE-AL Workflow (CDK2 Inhibitors) [4]	Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 2 (CDK2)	Variational Autoencoder (VAE) nested within an Active Learning (AL) framework, guided by physics-based oracles [4]	8 out of 9 synthesized molecules showed in vitro activity; one with nanomolar potency [4]	Successful in silico generation and in vitro validation of novel scaffolds [4]
DRAGONFLY (PPARγ Agonists) [7]	Peroxisome Proliferator-Activated Receptor Gamma (PPARγ)	Interactome-based deep learning combining Graph Neural Networks and Chemical Language Models ("zero-shot" design) [7]	Identified potent partial agonists with favorable activity and selectivity profiles; binding mode confirmed by crystal structure [7]	Prospective creation of innovative bioactive molecules without target-specific fine-tuning [7]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol:In VitroActivity and Selectivity Profiling for Nuclear Receptors

This protocol, inspired by the validation of DRAGONFLY-generated PPARγ agonists, outlines the steps for characterizing novel compounds [7].

• Cell-Based Reporter Assay:

  • Transfection: Seed appropriate cell lines (e.g., HEK293T) in 96-well plates. Transfect cells with a plasmid expressing the nuclear receptor of interest (e.g., PPARγ) along with a reporter plasmid (e.g., luciferase gene under control of a response element specific to the receptor).
  • Compound Treatment: After 24 hours, treat cells with a range of concentrations of the test compound, a known agonist (positive control), and vehicle only (negative control). Incubate for 6-24 hours.
  • Luciferase Measurement: Lyse cells and add luciferase substrate. Measure luminescence using a plate reader. Calculate EC50 values from dose-response curves to determine potency.

• Selectivity Profiling:

  • Repeat the reporter assay for a panel of related nuclear receptors (e.g., PPARα, PPARδ) to assess subtype selectivity and for common off-target receptors to determine specificity.

• Binding Affinity Determination (Surface Plasmon Resonance - SPR):

  • Immobilization: Immobilize the purified target protein (e.g., PPARγ ligand-binding domain) on a CMS sensor chip.
  • Kinetic Analysis: Inject a series of concentrations of the test compound over the chip surface at a constant flow rate.
  • Data Analysis: Record the association and dissociation phases in real-time. Fit the sensorgram data to a binding model (e.g., 1:1 Langmuir) to calculate the kinetic rate constants (ka, kd) and the equilibrium dissociation constant (KD).

Protocol: Enzymatic Assay for Kinase Inhibitor Potency

This protocol describes the measurement of IC50 values for kinase inhibitors, as performed for the CDK2 inhibitors generated by the VAE-AL workflow [4].

• Reaction Setup:

  • Prepare a reaction buffer suitable for the kinase (e.g., containing MgCl₂, DTT).
  • In a low-volume 96-well plate, mix the purified kinase (e.g., CDK2/Cyclin complex) with a range of concentrations of the test compound. Include a positive control (known potent inhibitor) and a negative control (DMSO vehicle).
  • Pre-incubate the kinase-inhibitor mixture for 15-30 minutes at room temperature.

• Kinase Reaction:

  • Initiate the reaction by adding a substrate (e.g., a peptide substrate) and ATP (including [γ-³²P]-ATP for radiometric assays or ATP suitable for ADP-Glo assays).
  • Allow the reaction to proceed for a linear period (e.g., 30-60 minutes) at 30°C.

• Detection and Analysis:

  • For radiometric assays: Stop the reaction with phosphoric acid, spot the mixture onto P81 filter papers, wash to remove unincorporated ATP, and quantify radioactivity by scintillation counting.
  • For ADP-Glo assays: Add the ADP-Glo Reagent to stop the kinase reaction and deplete remaining ATP, followed by the Kinase Detection Reagent to convert ADP to ATP and generate luminescence. Measure luminescence.
  • Plot the percent inhibition versus the logarithm of the compound concentration and fit the data to a sigmoidal dose-response curve to determine the IC50 value.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagrams, generated using DOT language, illustrate the core workflows underpinning the successful case studies.

Active Learning for Generative Molecular Design

Interactome-Based De Novo Drug Design

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 2: Key reagents, tools, and software essential for implementing the described AI-driven design and experimental validation workflows.

Category / Item	Specific Example / Function	Application in Workflow
AI & Modeling Software
Generative Chemistry Platform	Insilico Medicine's Chemistry42 [65]	De novo molecule generation with optimized properties.
Active Learning Framework	Custom VAE with nested AL cycles [4]	Iterative, goal-directed molecule generation and optimization.
Interactome Learning	DRAGONFLY (GTNN + LSTM) [7]	"Zero-shot" generation of bioactive molecules from ligand or structure templates.
Molecular Docking Software	AutoDock Vina, Glide, GOLD	Physics-based evaluation of target engagement (Oracle in AL) [4].
Chemical Synthesis
Automated Synthesizer	Chemspeed, Vortex, etc.	High-throughput synthesis of virtual hit compounds.
In Vitro Assays
Reporter Gene Assay Kits	Luciferase-based systems (e.g., Dual-Glo)	Cell-based functional activity assessment for targets like nuclear receptors [7].
Kinase Assay Kits	ADP-Glo Kinase Assay	Biochemical profiling of kinase inhibitor potency (IC50 determination) [4].
Binding Affinity Instrument	Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) systems (e.g., Biacore)	Label-free measurement of binding kinetics (KD, ka, kd) [7].
Structural Biology
Protein Crystallization & X-ray Diffraction	Crystallization robots, Synchrotron beamlines	Experimental confirmation of predicted binding modes [7].

The initial stage of small-molecule drug discovery has traditionally relied on high-throughput screening (HTS), a method limited to testing compounds that physically exist in screening libraries [66]. This constraint significantly restricts the explorable chemical space. Computational approaches have emerged as a solution, enabling researchers to screen vastly larger, virtual chemical libraries. However, the sheer size of these libraries—often encompassing billions of compounds [66]—makes exhaustive evaluation computationally infeasible. This challenge has catalyzed the development of advanced computational strategies, primarily active learning (AL) and generative models, to intelligently prioritize compounds for evaluation.

This Application Note provides a structured comparison of the performance of Active Learning against traditional random screening and other generative AI models within the context of a de novo drug design workflow. It synthesizes quantitative benchmarking data, details experimental protocols for implementing an AL cycle, and visualizes the workflow to equip researchers with the practical tools needed to adopt this efficient approach to hit identification.

Performance Benchmarking: Quantitative Comparisons

The efficacy of computational screening methods is ultimately measured by their ability to efficiently identify novel, potent, and synthesizable hit compounds. The tables below summarize key performance metrics from recent large-scale and prospective studies.

Table 1: Benchmarking Active Learning Against Random Screening

This table compares the performance of an Active Learning-driven workflow using the FEgrow package against random selection in a prospective study targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) [3].

Metric	Active Learning (AL)	Random Screening	Context
Hit Rate	3 active compounds out of 19 tested (15.8%)	Not explicitly stated; AL was used to prioritize the 19 compounds from a vast space.	Prospective design & testing of Mpro inhibitors [3].
Computational Efficiency	Identified promising compounds by evaluating only a fraction of the total chemical space.	Requires exhaustive evaluation of the entire library, which was deemed infeasible.	AL iteratively selects the most informative compounds to screen [3].
Key Outcome	Successfully identified novel, purchasable compounds with weak activity.	N/A	Demonstrates AL's utility in prioritizing from on-demand libraries [3].

Table 2: Performance of Other Generative and Deep Learning Models

This table summarizes the performance of other state-of-the-art generative and deep learning models in broad screening campaigns [66] [7].

Model / Approach	Reported Performance	Key Strength	Study Context
AtomNet (CNN)	Average DR hit rate of 6.7% across 22 internal projects; 91% of projects yielded reconfirmed hits [66].	Success across diverse targets, including those without known binders or high-quality structures [66].	A 318-target validation study; demonstrated ability to find novel scaffolds [66].
DRAGONFLY (Interactome-based)	Generated molecules with high predicted bioactivity and strong synthesizability (RAScore) and novelty [7].	Outperformed fine-tuned recurrent neural networks (RNNs) in generating synthesizable, novel, and bioactive molecules [7].	Prospective de novo design of PPARγ partial agonists; confirmed by crystal structure [7].
Standard Chemical Language Models (CLMs)	Performance was inferior to the DRAGONFLY model across most templates and properties evaluated [7].	Foundation for generative design; often requires application-specific fine-tuning [7].	Served as a baseline in comparative evaluation studies [7].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Active Learning Cycle for Compound Prioritization with FEgrow

This protocol details the steps for implementing an Active Learning cycle to prioritize compounds from a combinatorial space of linkers and R-groups, as applied in a study targeting the SARS-CoV-2 main protease [3].

1. Initialization and Setup

• Software: Utilize the FEgrow software package, an open-source tool for building and scoring congeneric series of compounds in a protein binding pocket [3].
• Inputs:
  • A 3D structure of the target protein (e.g., PDB ID for SARS-CoV-2 Mpro).
  • A defined ligand core structure and growth vector.
  • Libraries of potential linkers and R-groups (FEgrow provides a library of 2000 linkers and ~500 R-groups) [3].
  • An optional seed set of purchasable compounds from on-demand chemical libraries (e.g., Enamine REAL database) to constrain the search to synthetically tractable space [3].

2. Active Learning Loop The core of the protocol is an iterative cycle, typically run for a predetermined number of iterations or until performance plateaus.

• Step 1: Grow and Score. The FEgrow workflow is automated on a high-performance computing (HPC) cluster to:
  • Grow: Merge the core with combinations of linkers and R-groups from the defined libraries.
  • Build: Generate an ensemble of bioactive conformers for each grown molecule, optimizing them in the context of the rigid protein pocket using a hybrid Machine Learning/Molecular Mechanics (ML/MM) potential.
  • Score: Predict the binding affinity for each generated compound using a scoring function such as the gnina convolutional neural network [3].
• Step 2: Train Machine Learning Model. Use the computed scores (e.g., from gnina) and molecular descriptors of the evaluated compounds to train a machine learning model, such as a Gaussian Process model. This model learns to predict the score of unscreened compounds [3].
• Step 3: Select New Batch. The trained model predicts the scores for all unevaluated compounds in the chemical space. The next batch of compounds for evaluation is selected based on a acquisition function (e.g., selecting compounds with the highest predicted scores or those with high uncertainty to balance exploration and exploitation) [3].
• Step 4: Iterate. The newly selected batch of compounds is fed back into Step 1. The model is retrained with the new data in each iteration, improving its predictive accuracy and guiding the search toward more promising regions of the chemical space [3].

3. Output and Experimental Validation

• Output: The final output is a prioritized list of compound designs with high predicted binding affinity and desirable properties.
• Purchase and Synthesis: Select the top-ranking compounds for purchase from an on-demand library or custom synthesis.
• Experimental Testing: Physically test the selected compounds in a relevant biochemical or cell-based assay (e.g., a fluorescence-based protease activity assay for Mpro) to validate computational predictions [3].

Protocol: Deep Learning-Based Virtual High-Throughput Screening with AtomNet

This protocol describes the workflow for a large-scale virtual screen using the AtomNet convolutional neural network, as validated across 318 targets [66].

1. Library Preparation

• Chemical Space: Access a vast synthesis-on-demand chemical space (e.g., a 16-billion compound library) [66].
• Compound Filtering: Apply functional filters to remove compounds prone to assay interference (e.g., pan-assay interference compounds, PAINS) and those with high similarity to known binders of the target or its homologs to focus on novel chemotypes [66].

2. Structure-Based Scoring

• Pose Generation: Generate 3D coordinates for protein-ligand co-complexes. The protein structure can be from high-quality X-ray crystallography, cryo-EM, or a homology model (with template sequence identity as low as ~42%) [66].
• Neural Network Scoring: The AtomNet model analyzes the 3D coordinates of each generated protein-ligand complex and produces a predicted binding probability score for each compound [66].

3. Compound Selection and Validation

• Ranking and Clustering: Rank all compounds by their predicted binding probability. Cluster the top-ranked molecules to ensure structural diversity.
• Algorithmic Selection: Algorithmically select the highest-scoring exemplars from each cluster. The process is automated without manual cherry-picking [66].
• Synthesis and QC: Send the selected compounds for synthesis at a partner provider (e.g., Enamine). Quality control is performed using LC-MS and NMR to confirm identity and purity (>90%) [66].
• Bioactivity Testing: Test synthesized compounds in a single-dose primary assay. Reconfirmed hits are advanced to dose-response studies to determine potency (IC50/EC50). Further validation includes analog expansion to establish structure-activity relationships (SAR) [66].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the core cyclical process of an Active Learning-driven drug design workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key Software, Databases, and Resources for AL-Driven Drug Design

Item Name	Function / Application	Reference / Source
FEgrow Software	Open-source Python package for building and optimizing congeneric series of ligands in a protein binding pocket; core engine for the AL cycle.	https://github.com/cole-group/FEgrow [3]
Enamine REAL Database	On-demand chemical library containing billions of make-on-demand compounds; used to seed the search with synthetically tractable molecules.	Enamine Ltd. [3] [66]
gnina	A convolutional neural network-based scoring function used to predict protein-ligand binding affinity.	https://github.com/gnina/gnina [3]
RDKit	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit used for fundamental molecular operations like merging chemical fragments and generating conformers.	https://www.rdkit.org/ [3]
OpenMM	A high-performance toolkit for molecular simulation used within FEgrow for energy minimization of ligand poses.	https://openmm.org/ [3]
AtomNet	A structure-based convolutional neural network for large-scale virtual screening against diverse protein targets.	Atomwise Inc. [66]
DRAGONFLY	An interactome-based deep learning model for de novo molecular design, combining graph neural networks and chemical language models.	[7]

In the field of de novo drug design, the exploration of vast chemical spaces is fundamentally constrained by the high computational cost of evaluating candidate molecules with accurate physics-based scoring functions, such as molecular docking or free-energy perturbation [25]. Active Learning (AL), an iterative, feedback-driven machine learning paradigm, is emerging as a powerful solution to this bottleneck. By strategically selecting the most informative compounds for expensive evaluation, AL guides the exploration of chemical space, enabling a significant reduction in the number of computational experiments required to identify high-potential hits [3] [67]. This Application Note provides a detailed, quantitative overview of the efficiency gains delivered by AL and offers structured protocols for its implementation in de novo drug design workflows.

Quantitative Efficiency Gains of Active Learning

Integrating AL into molecular design workflows can lead to orders-of-magnitude improvements in computational efficiency. The following tables summarize documented performance enhancements across various platforms and oracle functions.

Table 1: Sample Efficiency and Hit Rate Enrichment with Active Learning

AL Integration Method	Oracle Function (Target)	Performance Gain vs. Baseline	Key Metric	Reference
RL–AL (with REINVENT)	Docking (RXRα)	66x more hits for fixed oracle budget	Hit Rate Enrichment	[25]
RL–AL (with REINVENT)	Pharmacophore (COX2)	5x more hits for fixed oracle budget	Hit Rate Enrichment	[25]
RL–AL (with REINVENT)	Docking (RXRα)	64x reduction in CPU time to find hits	Computational Time Saving	[25]
RL–AL (with REINVENT)	Pharmacophore (COX2)	4x reduction in CPU time to find hits	Computational Time Saving	[25]
Augmented Hill-Climb	Docking (DRD2)	~45x improvement in sample-efficiency	Sample Efficiency	[68]

Table 2: Virtual Screening Acceleration with Active Learning

Application Context	Screening Scale	Acceleration Factor vs. Brute-Force	Outcome	Reference
VS–AL (Standard)	Library of 100k molecules	7-11 fold improvement in oracle-call-efficiency	Recovered 35-42% of hits with only 5,000 oracle calls	[25]
FEgrow-AL (On-demand libraries)	Enamine REAL Space	Enabled prioritization from billions of compounds	Identification of synthesizable, active Mpro inhibitors	[3]
VAE with nested AL cycles	CDK2, KRAS	Efficient exploration of novel scaffolds	Generated diverse, drug-like molecules with excellent docking scores	[67]

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Active Learning with the FEgrow Workflow for Hit Expansion

This protocol details the use of the FEgrow software package for the structure-based elaboration of a known hit or fragment using an Active Learning cycle, as applied to target the SARS-CoV-2 main protease (Mpro) [3].

• 1. Input Preparation

  • Protein Structure: Prepare a cleaned and prepared protein structure file (e.g., PDB format) of the target binding site.
  • Ligand Core: Define the core structure of the known hit or fragment. This core will remain fixed during the growing process.
  • Growth Vector: Specify the atom(s) on the core from which new chemical groups will be grown.
  • Chemical Libraries: Supply libraries of linkers and R-groups (FEgrow provides a default library of ~2000 linkers and ~500 R-groups).

• 2. Initial Sampling and Evaluation

  • Use the FEgrow API to generate an initial, diverse subset of compounds by combinatorially attaching linkers and R-groups to the core at the specified growth vector.
  • For each generated compound, FEgrow will:
    • Generate an ensemble of ligand conformers using the ETKDG algorithm, with the core atoms restrained.
    • Filter conformers to remove those clashing with the protein.
    • Optimize the remaining conformers using a hybrid ML/MM potential energy function within a rigid protein binding pocket.
    • Score the final optimized pose using the gnina convolutional neural network scoring function (or another integrated scoring function).

• 3. Active Learning Cycle

  • Model Training: Train a machine learning surrogate model (e.g., a random forest model) on the collected data (molecular descriptors/fingerprints of the generated compounds and their corresponding gnina scores).
  • Candidate Selection (Acquisition): Use the trained model to predict the scores of all remaining unevaluated compounds in the combinatorial space. Select the next batch of compounds for evaluation based on an acquisition function, such as selecting compounds with the highest predicted scores (exploitation) or highest prediction uncertainty (exploration).
  • Evaluation and Iteration: Evaluate the newly selected batch of compounds using the expensive FEgrow building and gnina scoring workflow (Step 2). Add this new data to the training set and repeat the AL cycle (Steps 3a-3c) for a predefined number of iterations or until performance plateaus.

• 4. Post-Processing and Validation

  • Analyze the top-ranked compounds from the final AL cycle.
  • Optionally, filter results based on additional criteria like protein-ligand interaction profiles (PLIP), molecular weight, or synthetic accessibility (RAScore).
  • For prospective studies, select top candidates for purchase from on-demand libraries (e.g., Enamine REAL) or synthesis and subsequent experimental validation.

Protocol 2: Nested Active Learning Cycles with a Variational Autoencoder

This protocol describes a generative approach that embeds a VAE within two nested AL cycles to optimize target engagement and synthetic accessibility for targets like CDK2 and KRAS [67].

• 1. Initial Model Training

  • Data Representation: Represent training molecules as SMILES strings, which are tokenized and converted into one-hot encoding vectors.
  • Pre-training: Pre-train the VAE on a large, general dataset of drug-like molecules (e.g., ChEMBL) to learn a foundational chemical latent space.
  • Fine-tuning: Fine-tune the pre-trained VAE on a target-specific training set (initial-specific training set) to bias the generator towards relevant chemotypes.

• 2. Inner AL Cycle (Cheminformatic Optimization)

  • Molecule Generation: Sample the fine-tuned VAE to generate a population of new molecules.
  • Cheminformatic Evaluation: Evaluate the generated molecules using fast cheminformatic oracles for:
    • Drug-likeness: e.g., compliance with Rule of Five, QED.
    • Synthetic Accessibility (SA): e.g., using a retrosynthetic accessibility score (RAScore).
    • Novelty: Assessed by dissimilarity to the current temporal-specific set.
  • Model Update: Molecules meeting predefined thresholds are added to a temporal-specific set. The VAE is fine-tuned on this set to reinforce the generation of molecules with desired properties. This inner cycle iterates several times to accumulate a pool of optimized candidates.

• 3. Outer AL Cycle (Affinity Optimization)

  • Affinity Evaluation: After a set number of inner cycles, molecules accumulated in the temporal-specific set are evaluated using a high-cost, physics-based affinity oracle (e.g., molecular docking simulations).
  • Model Update: Molecules that achieve a favorable docking score are transferred to a permanent-specific set. The VAE is then fine-tuned on this permanent set, directly steering the generative process towards regions of chemical space with high predicted affinity.
  • The process returns to the inner AL cycle (Step 2), but now the novelty metric is assessed against the expanded permanent-specific set. This nested loop continues for a predefined number of outer cycles.

• 4. Candidate Selection and Validation

  • After completing the AL cycles, apply stringent filtration to the molecules in the permanent-specific set.
  • Use advanced molecular modeling simulations, such as Monte Carlo with Protein Energy Landscape Exploration (PELE), for an in-depth evaluation of binding interactions and stability.
  • Select top candidates for synthesis and experimental validation in biochemical or cell-based assays.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagrams, generated with Graphviz, illustrate the logical flow of the two primary AL workflows described in the protocols.

AL-Driven Hit Expansion

Nested AL with a VAE

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key Software and Computational Tools for AL-Driven Drug Design

Tool / Solution	Function / Application	Relevance to AL Workflow
FEgrow [3]	Open-source Python package for building and optimizing congeneric series of ligands in a protein binding pocket.	Serves as the structure-based evaluation oracle within the AL cycle for growing and scoring molecules.
REINVENT [25]	A SMILES-based RNN molecule generator optimized using Reinforcement Learning.	Used as the generative agent that is accelerated by the AL-based surrogate model for sample-efficient optimization.
Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [67]	A generative model that maps molecules to a continuous latent space for optimization.	The core generative component in nested AL workflows, fine-tuned on sets curated by cheminformatic and affinity oracles.
gnina [3]	A convolutional neural network scoring function for protein-ligand binding affinity prediction.	Used as a high-cost, structure-based scoring oracle (e.g., in FEgrow workflow) to evaluate candidate molecules.
DRAGONFLY [7]	An interactome-based deep learning model for ligand- and structure-based molecular design.	Demonstrates a "zero-shot" approach to generating bioactive compounds, representing an alternative to AL that requires no target-specific fine-tuning.
ACARL [5]	Activity Cliff-Aware Reinforcement Learning framework for molecular generation.	Incorporates a contrastive loss to prioritize activity cliff compounds, addressing a key SAR challenge in generative design.
RDKit [3]	Open-source cheminformatics toolkit.	Used for fundamental tasks like molecule manipulation, descriptor calculation, and fingerprint generation in most AL pipelines.
OpenMM [3]	A high-performance toolkit for molecular simulation.	Used within workflows like FEgrow for energy minimization and conformational optimization of ligand poses.

The main protease (Mpro) of SARS-CoV-2 is an attractive target for antiviral therapeutic development due to its essential role in viral replication and its high conservation among coronaviruses [69] [70] [71]. As a key enzyme in the viral life cycle, Mpro processes polyproteins pp1a and pp1ab into functional non-structural proteins, making its inhibition a promising strategy for curtailing COVID-19 infection [70] [72]. This case study details the application of an active learning-driven de novo drug design workflow for the discovery of novel Mpro inhibitors, demonstrating how iterative computational and experimental approaches can accelerate antiviral development.

Computational Design Strategies

Active Learning for De Novo Molecular Generation

The integration of deep reinforcement learning (RL) with structural insights has emerged as a powerful approach for generating novel Mpro inhibitors. In one implementation, researchers used REINVENT 2.0, an AI tool for de novo drug design, with customized scoring components including a 3D pharmacophore/shape-alignment scorer and a privileged fragment substructure match count (SMC) scorer [73]. This system was trained in two distinct modes:

• Exploration Mode: The pre-trained deep generative model (DGM) was used without modification to explore novel chemical space for new Mpro inhibitors over 1000 training epochs [73].
• Exploitation Mode: The DGM was retrained with 338 known Mpro inhibitors from the COVID Moonshot and ChEMBL databases to focus on established bioactive chemical space over 40-500 training epochs [73].

This approach successfully identified novel Mpro inhibitor series with IC50 values ranging from 1.3 to 2.3 μM, demonstrating the capability of active learning systems to generate chemically diverse and biologically active compounds [73].

Structure-Based Drug Design

Conventional structure-based approaches remain valuable, particularly for optimizing warhead interactions with the catalytic dyad. The Mpro active site features a Cys-His catalytic dyad (Cys145 and His41) located in a cleft between domains I and II [69] [70]. Successful inhibitor design strategically targets key subsites:

• S1' subsite: Accommodates hydrophobic moieties, forming van der Waals interactions with Thr24 and Thr25 [70].
• S1 subsite: Demonstrates absolute requirement for Gln at P1 position, with binding facilitated by Phe140, Asn142, His163, and Glu166 [69] [70].
• S2 subsite: A deep hydrophobic pocket composed of His41, Met49, Tyr54, and Met165 [70].

Table 1: Key Binding Pockets of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro

Subsite	Key Residues	Chemical Preference	Interaction Type
S1'	Thr24, Thr25	Hydrophobic groups	Van der Waals
S1	Phe140, Asn142, His163, Glu166	Gln-like structures	Hydrogen bonding
S2	His41, Met49, Tyr54, Met165	Hydrophobic moieties	Hydrophobic
S3/S4	Met165, Leu167, Phe185, Gln189	Variable	Van der Waals

The strategic placement of electrophilic warheads enables covalent inhibition through bond formation with Cys145. Recent work has yielded α-ketoamide derivatives such as compound 27h, which demonstrates potent inhibition (IC50 = 10.9 nM) and excellent antiviral activity (EC50 = 43.6 nM) through covalent binding to Cys145 [74].

Experimental Protocols

Biochemical Assay for Mpro Inhibition

Purpose: To quantitatively determine the inhibitory potency (IC50) of candidate compounds against SARS-CoV-2 Mpro [70] [74].

Procedure:

• Enzyme Preparation: Express and purify recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Mpro with native N and C termini in E. coli [70].
• Substrate Design: Utilize a fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based assay with fluorogenic substrates such as Mca-AVLQ↓SGFRK(Dnp)K, derived from the N-terminal autocleavage sequence [70] [74].
• Reaction Conditions: Incubate Mpro (10-50 nM) with test compounds (varying concentrations) and substrate (at Km concentration) in assay buffer for 30-60 minutes at room temperature [74].
• Detection: Measure fluorescence (excitation 320-360 nm, emission 440-460 nm) to quantify substrate cleavage [70].
• Data Analysis: Calculate percentage inhibition and determine IC50 values using nonlinear regression of inhibitor concentration-response curves [74].

Cellular Antiviral Activity Assessment

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of Mpro inhibitors in blocking SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture [75] [74].

Procedure:

• Cell Culture: Maintain VeroE6 cells in appropriate medium under biosafety level 3 (BSL-3) conditions [76] [74].
• Virus Infection: Infect cells with SARS-CoV-2 at low multiplicity of infection (MOI = 0.01-0.1) [74].
• Compound Treatment: Apply test compounds at various concentrations during or after viral adsorption [75].
• Incubation: Culture for 48-72 hours to allow for viral replication [74].
• Endpoint Analysis:
  • Quantify viral RNA by RT-qPCR [75]
  • Measure cytopathic effect (CPE) by cell viability assays [74]
  • Determine plaque reduction for infectious virus titers [75]
• Data Analysis: Calculate EC50 values from dose-response curves and assess selectivity index (CC50/EC50) [74].

Crystallographic Validation of Binding Mode

Purpose: To elucidate the atomic-level interaction between inhibitors and Mpro [70] [74].

Procedure:

• Protein Crystallization: Generate high-quality crystals of Mpro using vapor diffusion methods [70].
• Complex Formation: Soak crystals with inhibitor solutions or co-crystallize Mpro with inhibitors [74].
• Data Collection: Collect X-ray diffraction data at synchrotron facilities [74].
• Structure Determination: Solve structures by molecular replacement using existing Mpro coordinates [70].
• Analysis: Identify specific inhibitor-protein interactions, covalent bond formation with Cys145, and conformational changes [70] [74].

Workflow Visualization

Diagram 1: Active Learning-Driven Drug Design Workflow

Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Mpro Inhibitor Development

Reagent/Solution	Specifications	Application	Key Function
Recombinant SARS-CoV-2 Mpro	Native N/C-termini, >95% purity, catalytic activity verified [70]	Biochemical assays	Target enzyme for inhibition studies
FRET Substrate	Mca-AVLQ↓SGFRK(Dnp)K or similar cleavage sequence [70]	IC50 determination	Fluorescent protease activity measurement
VeroE6 Cells	African green monkey kidney epithelial cells [76]	Antiviral assays	Permissive cell line for SARS-CoV-2 infection
Crystallization Screen	Commercial sparse matrix screens (e.g., Hampton Research) [70]	Structural studies	Mpro crystal formation for X-ray studies
Positive Control Inhibitors	Nirmatrelvir, GC376, or N3 [70] [74]	Assay validation	Benchmark compound for potency comparison

Representative Results and Data Analysis

The integrated computational and experimental approach has yielded several promising inhibitor classes with varying mechanisms of action and potency profiles.

Table 3: Representative SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors

Inhibitor	Mechanism	Biochemical IC50	Antiviral EC50	Cellular CC50	Reference
N3	Covalent (Michael acceptor)	~0.1 μM (kobs/[I] = 11,300 M⁻¹s⁻¹)	16.77 μM	>133 μM	[70]
27h (α-ketoamide)	Covalent (Cys145 targeting)	10.9 nM	43.6 nM	>10 μM	[74]
TKB245/TKB248	Non-covalent (P1' 4-fluorobenzothiazole)	Not specified	Potent cellular blockade	Not specified	[76]
AI-generated hits	Non-covalent	1.3-2.3 μM	Not specified	Not specified	[73]
Myricetin	Non-covalent	Nanomolar range	Not specified	Not specified	[77]

Discussion and Outlook

The prospective design of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors exemplifies how active learning frameworks can accelerate antiviral drug discovery. The success of this approach hinges on several critical factors:

First, the structural plasticity of the Mpro binding site necessitates sampling diverse conformational states during design [77]. Analysis of approximately 30,000 Mpro conformations from crystallography and molecular dynamics reveals that small structural variations dramatically impact ligand binding, explaining challenges in transferring potent SARS-CoV inhibitors to SARS-CoV-2 Mpro despite identical active site sequences [77].

Second, the integration of multiple screening methodologies - including FRET-based biochemical assays, cellular antiviral assays, and structural validation - provides complementary data streams that enrich the active learning cycle [71] [75]. This multi-faceted validation is crucial for distinguishing genuine inhibitors from assay artifacts.

Third, the exploration of both covalent and non-covalent inhibition mechanisms expands the chemical space of viable inhibitors [71]. While covalent inhibitors like compound 27h demonstrate exceptional potency [74], non-covalent inhibitors may offer advantages in selectivity and safety profiles.

Future directions should prioritize addressing emerging viral variants and improving compound properties for clinical translation. The continued development of Mpro inhibitors remains essential given the potential for coronavirus recombination and future outbreaks [74]. The workflow established in this case study provides a robust template for rapid response to emerging viral threats through integrated computational and experimental approaches.

The rigorous evaluation of generative model output stands as a critical determinant in the successful application of active learning for de novo drug design. With the chemical universe estimated to contain over 10^60 drug-like molecules, artificial intelligence has emerged as a transformative technology for navigating this vast space through virtual screening and de novo design [78]. However, the absence of standardized evaluation guidelines presents a substantial challenge for both benchmarking generative approaches and selecting molecules for prospective studies [78]. This application note establishes a comprehensive framework for analyzing output quality through specialized metrics and experimental protocols, specifically contextualized within active learning workflows for de novo drug design. We systematically address key evaluation criteria—novelty, diversity, druggability, and binding affinity—providing researchers with validated methodologies to assess and compare generative model performance, thereby enabling more reliable and reproducible outcomes in computational drug discovery.

Molecular Design Quality Metrics and Quantitative Benchmarks

A multi-faceted assessment approach is essential for thoroughly evaluating de novo molecular designs. The metrics summarized in Table 1 provide a quantitative foundation for comparing generative model performance and molecular library quality.

Table 1: Comprehensive Metrics for Evaluating Molecular Design Quality

Metric Category	Specific Metric	Definition/Calculation	Target Value	Interpretation
Novelty	Scaffold Novelty	Bemis-Murcko scaffold comparison to training set [7]	>80% novel scaffolds	Higher values indicate greater structural innovation
	Structural Novelty	Tanimoto similarity using ECFP4 fingerprints [7]	<0.3 similarity	Lower values indicate greater novelty
Diversity	Uniqueness	Fraction of unique, valid canonical SMILES [78]	>80%	Higher values reduce redundancy
	Cluster Count	Number of structurally distinct clusters (sphere exclusion) [78]	Maximize	Higher counts indicate broader coverage
	Unique Substructures	Number of unique molecular substructures (Morgan fingerprints) [78]	Maximize	Reflects structural variety
Druggability	QED (Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness)	Multi-parameter optimization of physicochemical properties [4]	>0.6	Higher values indicate better drug-like properties
	RAscore (Retrosynthetic Accessibility Score)	Assessment of synthetic feasibility [7]	>threshold	Higher scores indicate easier synthesis
	Lipinski's Rule of Five	Molecular weight ≤500, HBD ≤5, HBA ≤10, LogP ≤5 [1]	0 violations	Ideal for oral bioavailability
Binding Affinity	pIC50 Prediction	-log10(IC50) predicted by QSAR models [7]	>6.0 (100 nM)	Higher values indicate greater potency
	Docking Score	Glide docking score (kcal/mol) [6]	<-8.0 kcal/mol	More negative values indicate stronger binding
	FEP+ Prediction	Absolute binding free energy (kcal/mol) [6]	<-8.0 kcal/mol	Physics-based high accuracy prediction

Critical considerations for metric implementation include addressing the library size confounder—evaluation outcomes can be significantly distorted when based on insufficiently sized molecular libraries. Research indicates that similarity metrics like Fréchet ChemNet Distance (FCD) require evaluation of at least 10,000 designs to reach stable values, substantially more than the 1,000-10,000 typically generated in many studies [78]. Furthermore, the FCD between inactive molecules and fine-tuning sets can paradoxically appear lower than that of active molecules due to sample size differences, highlighting the necessity of using consistent library sizes when making comparative assessments [78].

Experimental Protocols for Metric Evaluation

Protocol for Assessing Novelty and Diversity

Objective: Quantitatively evaluate the structural innovation and chemical space coverage of generated molecular libraries. Materials: Generated molecular structures in SMILES/SELFIES format, reference set of known active compounds, computing environment with RDKit and cheminformatics libraries.

• Data Preparation: Convert all generated and reference molecules to canonical SMILES. Generate Bemis-Murcko scaffolds for all compounds.
• Novelty Assessment:
  • Calculate scaffold novelty by determining the percentage of generated scaffolds not present in the reference set [7].
  • Compute maximum Tanimoto similarity using ECFP4 fingerprints between each generated molecule and the reference set [7].
  • Report the percentage of molecules with similarity <0.3 to any reference compound.
• Diversity Evaluation:
  • Calculate uniqueness as the fraction of generated molecules with unique canonical SMILES representations [78].
  • Perform structural clustering using the sphere exclusion algorithm with Tanimoto similarity threshold of 0.7 [78].
  • Report the total number of clusters identified, where more clusters indicate greater diversity.
  • Generate Morgan fingerprints (radius=3, 1024 bits) and count unique substructural patterns across the library [78].
• Interpretation: A high-quality library should demonstrate >80% scaffold novelty, <0.3 maximum similarity to reference compounds, >80% uniqueness, and multiple structural clusters.

Protocol for Evaluating Druggability and Synthetic Accessibility

Objective: Systematically assess the drug-like properties and synthetic feasibility of generated molecules. Materials: Generated molecular structures, computing environment with ADMET prediction tools, RAscore calculator, physicochemical property calculators.

• Physicochemical Profiling:
  • Calculate molecular weight, hydrogen bond donors (HBD), hydrogen bond acceptors (HBA), and octanol-water partition coefficient (LogP) [1].
  • Determine compliance with Lipinski's Rule of Five (≤5 HBD, ≤10 HBA, MW ≤500, LogP ≤5) [1].
  • Compute Quantitative Estimate of Drug-likeness (QED) incorporating multiple physicochemical parameters [4].
• Synthetic Accessibility Assessment:
  • Calculate Retrosynthetic Accessibility Score (RAscore) for all generated molecules [7].
  • RAscore >0.5 generally indicates reasonable synthetic feasibility, though target-dependent thresholds may be established.
• Multi-parameter Optimization: Apply Pareto ranking based on QED, RAscore, and other relevant properties to identify compounds balancing multiple druggability criteria [79].
• Interpretation: Prioritize molecules with 0 Lipinski violations, QED >0.6, and RAscore above established thresholds for further development.

Protocol for Predicting Binding Affinity

Objective: Accurately predict the binding affinity and mode of generated molecules against target proteins. Materials: Generated molecular structures, protein target structure (PDB format), computing environment with docking software (Glide), FEP+ software, QSAR models.

• Structure-Based Affinity Prediction:
  • Prepare protein structure through protein preparation wizard (correct bond orders, add missing hydrogens, optimize hydrogen bonding).
  • Generate ligand structures and convert to 3D coordinates with appropriate ionization states at physiological pH.
  • Perform molecular docking using Glide with standard precision (SP) or extra precision (XP) modes [6].
  • For high-priority compounds, execute Free Energy Perturbation (FEP+) calculations to obtain absolute binding free energies [6].
• Ligand-Based Affinity Prediction:
  • Develop QSAR models using kernel ridge regression (KRR) with ECFP4, CATS, and USRCAT descriptors [7].
  • Train models on known active compounds with published IC50 values.
  • Predict pIC50 values for generated molecules using the validated QSAR models.
• Affinity Validation: Select compounds with consistent affinity predictions across multiple methods (docking score <-8.0 kcal/mol, predicted pIC50 >6.0, FEP+ <-8.0 kcal/mol) for experimental validation.
• Interpretation: Compounds demonstrating strong binding across multiple computational methods have higher probability of experimental confirmation.

Integrated Workflow Visualization

Molecular Evaluation Workflow in Active Learning

Active Learning Cycle for Molecular Optimization

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Tools for De Novo Design Evaluation

Tool Name	Type	Primary Function	Application Context
DRAGONFLY [7]	Deep Learning Framework	Interactome-based molecular generation	Ligand- and structure-based design without application-specific fine-tuning
Schrödinger Active Learning Applications [6]	Commercial Software Suite	Machine learning-guided molecular screening	Ultra-large library screening with Glide docking and FEP+ predictions
DeLA-DrugSelf [79]	Generative Algorithm	Multi-objective de novo design	SELFIES-based molecular generation with explicit collapse prevention
COMBS [80]	Computational Method	De novo design of drug-binding proteins	Creating proteins that bind specific pharmacophores with high affinity
RAscore [7]	Computational Metric	Retrosynthetic accessibility assessment	Evaluating synthetic feasibility of generated molecules
FEP+ [6]	Physics-Based Simulation	Absolute binding free energy calculation	High-accuracy affinity prediction for priority compounds
Chemical Language Models (CLMs) [78]	Deep Learning Models	SMILES/SELFIES-based molecular generation	Large-scale molecular design with transfer learning capabilities
Variational Autoencoder (VAE) [4]	Generative Architecture	Molecular generation in latent space	Integration with active learning cycles for targeted exploration

The evaluation framework presented herein enables rigorous assessment of molecular designs within active learning workflows for de novo drug design. Key recommendations for implementation include: (1) generating sufficiently large libraries (>10,000 designs) to ensure metric stability and reliability [78]; (2) employing multi-parameter optimization strategies that balance novelty, diversity, druggability, and affinity rather than focusing on single metrics [4] [79]; (3) integrating high-fidelity physics-based methods like FEP+ for critical affinity predictions [6]; and (4) implementing diversity-aware reinforcement learning techniques to mitigate mode collapse and enhance chemical space exploration [81]. Through systematic application of these metrics, protocols, and visualization tools, researchers can significantly improve the reliability and reproducibility of generative drug discovery outcomes, ultimately accelerating the identification of novel therapeutic candidates with optimized properties.

Conclusion

Active learning has unequivocally emerged as a cornerstone of modern de novo drug design, effectively bridging the gap between generative AI's creative potential and the practical constraints of resource-efficient discovery. By intelligently guiding the exploration of chemical space, AL frameworks demonstrate a remarkable ability to generate novel, diverse, and potent drug candidates, as validated by successful experimental campaigns against challenging targets like CDK2 and KRAS. The key takeaways underscore the importance of robust methodological design—including nested learning cycles, physics-based oracles, and human expertise integration—to navigate complex optimization landscapes and activity cliffs. Looking forward, the integration of more sophisticated generative models, adaptive learning protocols, and automated synthesis planning will further accelerate the transition from computational design to clinical candidates. The continued adoption and refinement of these workflows promise to unlock previously 'undruggable' targets and significantly shorten the timeline for delivering new therapeutics to patients, solidifying AI-driven discovery as a pillar of biomedical research.

References

• 1. Advances in De Novo Drug Design: From Conventional to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7915729/]
• 2. Using Automation and ML in Drug Discovery ... [https://www.labmanager.com/using-automation-and-ml-in-drug-discovery-and-development-33184]
• 3. Active learning driven prioritisation of compounds from on ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/dd/d4dd00343h]
• 4. Optimizing drug design by merging generative AI with a ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-025-01635-7]
• 5. Activity cliff-aware reinforcement learning for de novo drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12013064/]
• 6. Active Learning Applications - Schrödinger [https://www.schrodinger.com/platform/products/active-learning-applications/]
• 7. Prospective de novo drug design with deep interactome ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-47613-w]
• 8. Human-in-the-loop assisted de novo molecular design - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9795720/]
• 9. Target Specific De Novo Design of Drug Candidate ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2302.07868v7]
• 10. Current status of active learning for drug discovery [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667318521000234]
• 11. Generative AI for navigating synthesizable chemical space [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12541314/]
• 12. Active Learning Enables Extrapolation in Molecular ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2501.02059]
• 13. Generative AI for drug discovery and protein design [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590098625000107]
• 14. Generative artificial intelligence based models optimization ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01059-4]
• 15. Generative Deep Learning for de Novo Drug Design A ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12308806/]
• 16. Generative artificial intelligence in drug discovery [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10879372/]
• 17. Role Of Generative AI In Drug Discovery Revolution 2025 [https://murphi.ai/drug-discovery/]
• 18. A generative framework for enhancing drug target ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-01589-9]
• 19. Human-in-the-loop active learning for goal-oriented molecule ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-024-00924-y]
• 20. De Novo Design of SIK3 Inhibitors via Feedback-Driven ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2511.06930v1]
• 21. MF-LAL: Drug Compound Generation Using Multi-Fidelity ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.11226v3]
• 22. Human-in-the-loop assisted de novo molecular design [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00667-8]
• 23. Molecular Docking and Structure-Based Drug Design ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6332083/]
• 24. FEP+ - Schrödinger [https://www.schrodinger.com/platform/products/fep/]
• 25. Sample efficient reinforcement learning with active learning for ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2024/sc/d3sc04653b]
• 26. Structure based drug design and machine learning ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-17708-5]
• 27. Structure-aware dual-target drug design through ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11234869/]
• 28. Recent Advances in Ligand-Based Drug Design [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2975775/]
• 29. Ligand and Pharmacophore based Design | BIOVIA [https://www.3ds.com/products/biovia/discovery-studio/ligand-and-pharmacophore-based-design]
• 30. De Novo Design Workflow | Schrödinger Machine Learning ... [https://www.schrodinger.com/platform/products/de-novo-design-workflow/]
• 31. Schrödinger Release Notes - Release 2025-1 [https://www.schrodinger.com/life-science/download/release-notes/release-2025-1/]
• 32. Integrating machine learning with in silico studies and ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482525010637]
• 33. Structure-based design and synthesis of novel highly ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41187566/]
• 34. Structure-Based Design and Synthesis of Novel Highly ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523425010864]
• 35. Cyclin-Dependent Kinase (CDK) Inhibitors: Structure– ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6111440/]
• 36. : rationally directed discovery of a CDK lead... 2 inhibitors novel potent [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40823493/]
• 37. Avenzo Therapeutics to Present Initial Results from the... - BioSpace [https://www.biospace.com/press-releases/avenzo-therapeutics-to-present-initial-results-from-the-phase-1-study-of-avzo-021-a-potential-best-in-class-cdk2-inhibitor-at-the-2025-san-antonio-breast-cancer-symposium]
• 38. QSAR-guided discovery of novel KRAS inhibitors for lung ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2025.1663846/full]
• 39. Deriving general structure–activity/selectivity relationship ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-66173-z]
• 40. Active learning driven prioritisation of compounds from on- ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2025/dd/d4dd00343h]
• 41. An open-source molecular builder and free energy ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42004-022-00754-9]
• 42. cole-group/FEgrow: An Open-Source Molecular Builder ... [https://github.com/cole-group/FEgrow]
• 43. In Search of Beautiful Molecules: A Perspective on Generative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12458704/]
• 44. Advances in multiparameter optimization methods for de ... [https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Advances-in-multiparameter-optimization-methods-for-Segall/58f418806e79a3c2424257312b7222c118781100]
• 45. Activity cliff-aware reinforcement learning for de novo drug ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-01006-3]
• 46. Active and machine learning-enhanced discovery of new ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11196408/]
• 47. Deep Batch Active Learning for Drug Discovery [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89679v2]
• 48. De Novo Molecular Design Enabled by Direct Preference ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2504.01389v1]
• 49. Benchmarking Active Learning Protocols for Ligand ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38446131/]
• 50. Resolving the Exploitation-Exploration Dilemma in ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2501.02153v1]
• 51. Balancing exploration and exploitation in de novo drug ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2024/dd/d4dd00105b]
• 52. Disentangled $β$-CVAE in De Novo Drug Design [https://arxiv.org/abs/2306.01683]
• 53. The Human-In-the-Loop Drug Design Framework with ... [https://sciety-labs.elifesciences.org/articles/by?article_doi=10.1101/2025.11.20.689585]
• 54. Optimal Molecular Design: Generative Active Learning ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11428133/]
• 55. Automated drug design for druggable target identification ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-18091-x]
• 56. Valid Property-Enhanced Contrastive Learning for ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2509.00684v1]
• 57. The QDπ dataset, training data for drug-like molecules and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-025-04972-3]
• 58. Deep Batch Active Learning for Drug Discovery [https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89679]
• 59. Frontiers | De through artificial intelligence: an... novo drug design [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/hematology/articles/10.3389/frhem.2024.1305741/full]
• 60. Retrosynthesis prediction with an interpretable deep- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-41698-5]
• 61. Retrosynthesis: Definitions, Applications, and Examples [https://www.synthiaonline.com/resources/articles/retrosynthesis-definitions-applications-and-examples]
• 62. FDA-Approved & Pharmacopeia Drug Library [https://www.targetmol.com/compound-library/fda_approved-pharmacopeia_drug_library]
• 63. Compound Library for HTS - Drug Discovery [https://www.medchemexpress.com/screening-libraries.html?srsltid=AfmBOornbInCdJZDSBrj5UIN2MwX_csUhkTWSqU61Qk3cEDC8Uyh8S38]
• 64. Drug Repurposing Compound Library [https://www.targetmol.com/compound-library/drug_repurposing_compound_library]
• 65. From Start to Phase 1 in 30 Months [https://insilico.com/phase1]
• 66. AI is a viable alternative to high throughput screening [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54655-z]
• 67. Optimizing drug design by merging generative AI with a ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12334747/]
• 68. Augmented Hill-Climb increases reinforcement learning ... [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-022-00646-z]
• 69. Computer Aided Structure-Based Drug Design of Novel ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2079-3197/12/1/18]
• 70. Structure of Mpro from SARS-CoV-2 and discovery of its ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2223-y]
• 71. A Review of the Current Landscape of SARS-CoV-2 Main ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8745775/]
• 72. SARS-CoV-2 proteases Mpro and PLpro - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9788855/]
• 73. Identification of SARS-CoV-2 Mpro inhibitors through deep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11187573/]
• 74. Discovery and structure-activity relationship studies of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0223523423006232]
• 75. Identification of SARS-CoV-2 inhibitors targeting Mpro and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-022-03090-9]
• 76. Structure-Activity Relationship Studies of SARS-CoV-2 ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37756225/]
• 77. A Blueprint for High Affinity SARS-CoV-2 Mpro Inhibitors ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8009102/]
• 78. How evaluation choices distort the outcome of generative ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12613558/]
• 79. DeLA-DrugSelf: Empowering multi-objective de novo ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482524005705]
• 80. De novo design of drug-binding proteins with predictable ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11290694/]
• 81. Diversity-Aware Reinforcement Learning for de novo Drug ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2410.10431v2]