Back

OmniScore: Universal Scoring of Diverse Biomolecular Complexes via Equivariant Geometry-Aware Discrete Representation Learning

Bui, T.-C.; Lee, J.; Ko, J.

2026-08-29 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.08.28.747942 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Scoring biomolecular complexes is central to structure assessment and drug discovery, yet the complexes themselves vary widely in pose, size, and molecular composition. A scoring function tuned for one interaction type rarely carries over to another, and most existing methods compound the problem by leaning heavily on task-specific labels. We introduce OmniScore, a universal structure-based framework that learns a shared geometry-aware representation of complexes once and then adapts it to downstream scoring through lightweight task-specific heads. OmniScore couples a graph view and a sequence view of each structure, encodes its three-dimensional geometry, and compresses representations into a compact latent space that a reconstruction module and prediction heads can reuse. We pretrain this backbone on diverse datasets including complexes, monomers, and small molecules with complementary objectives: coordinate recovery, correcting corrupted input tokens, predicting molecular identity, and grounding the representation in structure-level physical quantities. Across the evaluated benchmarks, OmniScore gave the best antibody-antigen and nanobody-antigen quality assessment on all reported metrics compared to state-of-the-art baselines. Its frozen residue embeddings matched the state-of-the-art protein-tokenization method with an average functional-site accuracy of 71.8% on a standard residue-level benchmark. On protein-ligand scoring and ranking benchmarks, it performed on par with methods built specifically for that single task. These results suggest that geometry-aware pretraining can provide a reusable scoring backbone for tasks that depend on interfacial and residue-level structure, within the evaluated settings.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.