Reliability of AI Methods in Drug Discovery: Evaluation of Boltz‑2 for Structure and Binding Affinity Prediction
TL;DR
An extensive evaluation of Boltz-2 using two large-scale data sets shows that Boltz-2 lacks the energetic resolution required for lead identification, highlighting the necessity of employing physics-based methods for the reliability and refinement of AI-derived models.
Abstract
Despite continuing hype about the role of AI in drug discovery, no “AI-discovered drugs” have so far received regulatory approval. Here we assess one of the latest AI-based tools in this domain. Boltz-2, a recently developed biomolecular foundation model, aims to bridge the gap between AI efficiency and physics-based precision through a joint “cofolding” approach. In this study, we provide an extensive evaluation of Boltz-2 using two large-scale data sets: 16780 compounds for 3CLPro and 21702 compounds for TNKS2. We compare Boltz-2 predicted structures with traditional docking and binding affinities with binding free energies derived from the physics-based ESMACS protocol. Structural analysis reveals significant global RMSD variations, indicating that Boltz-2 predicts multiple protein conformations and ligand binding positions rather than a single converged pose. Energetic evaluations exhibit only weak to moderate correlations across the global data sets. Furthermore, a focused analysis of the top 100 compounds yields no significant correlation between the Boltz-2 predictions and the binding free energies from fine-grained ESMACS, alongside frequently observed saturation-state errors in Boltz-2 predicted ligand structures. Our results show that Boltz-2 lacks the energetic resolution required for lead identification. These findings highlight the necessity of employing physics-based methods for the reliability and refinement of AI-derived models.