$npx -y skills add adaptyvbio/protein-design-skills --skill bindcraftEnd-to-end binder design using BindCraft hallucination. Use this skill when: (1) Designing protein binders with built-in AF2 validation, (2) Running production-quality binder campaigns, (3) Using different design protocols (fast, default, slow), (4) Need joint backbone and sequen
| 1 | # BindCraft Binder Design |
| 2 | |
| 3 | ## Prerequisites |
| 4 | |
| 5 | | Requirement | Minimum | Recommended | |
| 6 | |-------------|---------|-------------| |
| 7 | | Python | 3.9+ | 3.10 | |
| 8 | | CUDA | 11.7+ | 12.0+ | |
| 9 | | GPU VRAM | 32GB | 48GB (L40S) | |
| 10 | | RAM | 32GB | 64GB | |
| 11 | |
| 12 | ## How to run |
| 13 | |
| 14 | > **First time?** See [Getting started](../../docs/getting-started.md) to set up Modal and biomodals. |
| 15 | |
| 16 | ### Option 1: Modal (recommended) |
| 17 | ```bash |
| 18 | cd biomodals |
| 19 | modal run modal_bindcraft.py \ |
| 20 | --input-pdb target.pdb \ |
| 21 | --target-chains A \ |
| 22 | --target-hotspot-residues "45,67,89" \ |
| 23 | --lengths "70,100" \ |
| 24 | --number-of-final-designs 50 |
| 25 | ``` |
| 26 | |
| 27 | **GPU**: L40S (48GB) | **Timeout**: 300 min default |
| 28 | |
| 29 | ### Option 2: Local installation |
| 30 | ```bash |
| 31 | git clone https://github.com/martinpacesa/BindCraft.git |
| 32 | cd BindCraft |
| 33 | |
| 34 | # BindCraft is configured with JSON files, not flags |
| 35 | python -u ./bindcraft.py \ |
| 36 | --settings ./settings_target/mytarget.json \ |
| 37 | --filters ./settings_filters/default_filters.json \ |
| 38 | --advanced ./settings_advanced/default_4stage_multimer.json |
| 39 | ``` |
| 40 | |
| 41 | The target PDB, chains, hotspots, and binder length range are set inside the |
| 42 | `--settings` JSON. See the BindCraft repo for the settings schema. |
| 43 | |
| 44 | ## Key parameters (Modal wrapper) |
| 45 | |
| 46 | | Parameter | Default | Description | |
| 47 | |-----------|---------|-------------| |
| 48 | | `--input-pdb` | required | Target structure | |
| 49 | | `--target-chains` | `A` | Target chain(s) | |
| 50 | | `--target-hotspot-residues` | "" | Target hotspots (e.g. "45,67,89") | |
| 51 | | `--lengths` | `50,130` | Binder length range | |
| 52 | | `--number-of-final-designs` | 1 | Passing designs to return | |
| 53 | | `--max-trajectories` | none | Cap on trajectories | |
| 54 | |
| 55 | ## Output format |
| 56 | |
| 57 | ``` |
| 58 | output/ |
| 59 | ├── design_0/ |
| 60 | │ ├── binder.pdb # Final design |
| 61 | │ ├── complex.pdb # Binder + target |
| 62 | │ ├── metrics.json # QC scores |
| 63 | │ └── trajectory/ # Optimization trajectory |
| 64 | ├── design_1/ |
| 65 | │ └── ... |
| 66 | └── summary.csv # All metrics |
| 67 | ``` |
| 68 | |
| 69 | ### Metrics Output |
| 70 | ```json |
| 71 | { |
| 72 | "plddt": 0.89, |
| 73 | "ptm": 0.78, |
| 74 | "iptm": 0.62, |
| 75 | "pae": 8.5, |
| 76 | "rmsd": 1.2, |
| 77 | "sequence": "MKTAYIAK..." |
| 78 | } |
| 79 | ``` |
| 80 | |
| 81 | ## Sample output |
| 82 | |
| 83 | ### Successful run |
| 84 | ``` |
| 85 | $ modal run modal_bindcraft.py --input-pdb target.pdb --target-chains A --target-hotspot-residues "45,67,89" --number-of-final-designs 50 |
| 86 | [INFO] Loading BindCraft model... |
| 87 | [INFO] Target: target.pdb (chain A) |
| 88 | [INFO] Hotspots: 45, 67, 89 |
| 89 | [INFO] Generating designs... |
| 90 | |
| 91 | Design 1/50: |
| 92 | Length: 78 AA |
| 93 | pLDDT: 0.89, ipTM: 0.62 |
| 94 | Saved: output/design_0/ |
| 95 | |
| 96 | Design 50/50: |
| 97 | Length: 85 AA |
| 98 | pLDDT: 0.86, ipTM: 0.58 |
| 99 | Saved: output/design_49/ |
| 100 | |
| 101 | [INFO] Campaign complete. Summary: output/summary.csv |
| 102 | Pass rate: 32/50 (64%) with ipTM > 0.5 |
| 103 | ``` |
| 104 | |
| 105 | **What good output looks like:** |
| 106 | - pLDDT: > 0.85 for most designs |
| 107 | - ipTM: > 0.5 for passing designs |
| 108 | - Pass rate: 30-70% depending on target |
| 109 | - Diverse sequences across designs |
| 110 | |
| 111 | ## Decision tree |
| 112 | |
| 113 | ``` |
| 114 | Should I use BindCraft? |
| 115 | │ |
| 116 | ├─ What type of design? |
| 117 | │ ├─ Production-quality binders → BindCraft ✓ |
| 118 | │ ├─ High diversity exploration → RFdiffusion |
| 119 | │ └─ All-atom precision → BoltzGen |
| 120 | │ |
| 121 | ├─ What matters most? |
| 122 | │ ├─ Experimental success rate → BindCraft ✓ |
| 123 | │ ├─ Speed / diversity → RFdiffusion + ProteinMPNN |
| 124 | │ ├─ AF2 gradient optimization → ColabDesign |
| 125 | │ └─ All-atom control → BoltzGen |
| 126 | │ |
| 127 | └─ Compute resources? |
| 128 | ├─ Have L40S/A100 → BindCraft ✓ |
| 129 | └─ Only A10G → RFdiffusion + ProteinMPNN |
| 130 | ``` |
| 131 | |
| 132 | ## Typical performance |
| 133 | |
| 134 | | Campaign Size | Time (L40S) | Cost (Modal) | Notes | |
| 135 | |---------------|-------------|--------------|-------| |
| 136 | | 50 designs | 2-4h | ~$15 | Quick campaign | |
| 137 | | 100 designs | 4-8h | ~$30 | Standard | |
| 138 | | 200 designs | 8-16h | ~$60 | Large campaign | |
| 139 | |
| 140 | Adaptyv's own tests of these models showed BindCraft costing about $2.90 per accepted |
| 141 | design, averaged across 7 targets. |
| 142 | |
| 143 | **Experimental success rate** (BindCraft paper): 10 to 100%, averaging 46.3% across 12 |
| 144 | targets; strongly target-dependent. |
| 145 | |
| 146 | --- |
| 147 | |
| 148 | ## Verify |
| 149 | |
| 150 | ```bash |
| 151 | find output -name "binder.pdb" | wc -l # Should match num_designs |
| 152 | ``` |
| 153 | |
| 154 | --- |
| 155 | |
| 156 | ## Troubleshooting |
| 157 | |
| 158 | **Low ipTM scores**: Check hotspot selection, increase designs |
| 159 | **Slow convergence**: Use fast protocol for screening |
| 160 | **OOM errors**: Reduce num_models, use L40S GPU |
| 161 | **Poor diversity**: Lower sampling_temp, run multiple seeds |
| 162 | |
| 163 | ### Error interpretation |
| 164 | |
| 165 | | Error | Cause | Fix | |
| 166 | |-------|-------|-----| |
| 167 | | `RuntimeError: CUDA out |