Vina-GPU 2.0: Further Accelerating AutoDock Vina and Its Derivatives with Graphics Processing Units
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Modern drug discovery typically faces large virtual screens from huge compound databases where multiple docking tools are involved for meeting various real scenes or improving the precision of virtual screens. Among these tools, AutoDock Vina and its numerous derivatives are the most popular and have become the standard pipeline for molecular docking in modern drug discovery. Our recent Vina-GPU method realized 14-fold acceleration against AutoDock Vina on a piece of NVIDIA RTX 3090 GPU in one virtual screening case. Further speedup of AutoDock Vina and its derivatives with graphics processing units (GPUs) is beneficial to systematically push their popularization in large-scale virtual screens due to their high benefit-cost ratio and easy operation for users. Thus, we proposed the Vina-GPU 2.0 method to further accelerate AutoDock Vina and the most common derivatives with new docking algorithms (QuickVina 2 and QuickVina-W) with GPUs. Caused by the discrepancy in their docking algorithms, our Vina-GPU 2.0 adopts different GPU acceleration strategies. In virtual screening for two hot protein kinase targets, RIPK1 and RIPK3, from the DrugBank database, our Vina-GPU 2.0 reaches an average of 65.6-fold, 1.4-fold, and 3.6-fold docking acceleration against the original AutoDock Vina, QuickVina 2, and QuickVina-W while ensuring their comparable docking accuracy. In addition, we develop a friendly and installation-free graphical user interface tool for their convenient usage. The codes and tools of Vina-GPU 2.0 are freely available at https://github.com/DeltaGroupNJUPT/Vina-GPU-2.0, coupled with explicit instructions and examples.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".