A further leap of improvement in tertiary structure prediction in CASP13 prompts new routes for future assessments
Open accessAbstract
We present our assessment of tertiary structure predictions for hard targets in Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction round 13 (CASP13). The analysis includes (a) assignment and discussion of best models through scores‐aided visual inspection of models for each evaluation unit (EU); (b) ranking of predictors resulting from this evaluation and from global scores; and (c) evaluation of progress, state of the art, and current limitations of protein structure prediction. We witness a sizable improvement in tertiary structure prediction building on the progress observed from CASP11 to CASP12, with (a) top models reaching backbone RMSD <3 å for several EUs of size <150 residues, contributed by many groups; (b) at least one model that roughly captures global topology for all EUs, probably unprecedented in this track of CASP; and (c) even quite good models for full, unsplit targets. Better structure predictions are brought about mainly by improved residue‐residue contact predictions, and since this CASP also by distance predictions, achieved through state‐of‐the‐art machine learning methods which also progressed to work with slightly shallower alignments compared to CASP12. As we reach a new realm of tertiary structure prediction quality, new directions are proposed and explored for future CASPs: (a) dropping splitting into EUs, (b) rethinking difficulty metrics probably in terms of contact and distance predictions, (c) assessing also side chains for models of high backbone accuracy, and (d) assessing residue‐wise and possibly residue‐residue quality estimates.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Existing protein structure prediction methods fall far short of atomic or experimental accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available, limiting their utility for many biological applications.
“Despite recent progress10–14, existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.”
From Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold (2021) · cites this paper as [13]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 21 · Cited by 79
- Authors
- Abriata, L. A., Tamò, G. E., & Dal Peraro, M.
- Affiliations
- SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
- School of Life Sciences Institute of Bioengineering, École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) Lausanne Switzerland
- Corresponding author
- Abriata, Luciano A.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-08-07
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1100-1112
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2962831078
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 21
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 33 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7
- FWCI
- 5.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- infoscience.epfl.ch
- Licence
- Locations
- Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- Schweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein tertiary structure prediction, CASP13, assessment units, residue-residue contact prediction, distance prediction, machine learning predictors
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Software, Protein Folding, Computational Biology, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Databases, Protein
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review