Improved multimer prediction using massive sampling with AlphaFold in CASP15
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
AlphaFold2 has revolutionized structure prediction by achieving high accuracy comparable to experimentally determined structures. However, there is still room for improvement, especially for challenging cases like multimers. A key to the success of AlphaFold is its ability to assess and rank its own predictions. Our basic idea for the Wallner group in CASP15 was to exploit this excellent scoring function in AlphaFold by massive sampling. To achieve this goal, we conducted AlphaFold runs using six different settings, using templates, without templates, and with an increased number of recycles for both multimer v1 and v2 weights. In all instances, we enabled dropout layers during inference, allowing for sampling of uncertainty and enhancing the diversity of the generated models. In total, 274 289 models were generated for the 38 targets in CASP15, with a median of 4810 models per target. Of these 38 targets, 10 were high quality, 11 were medium quality, 11 were acceptable, and only 6 were incorrect. The improvement over the baseline method, NBIS‐AF2‐multimer, is substantial, with the mean DockQ increasing from 0.43 to 0.56, with several targets showing a DockQ score increase of +0.6 units. Remarkable, considering Wallner and NBIS‐AF2‐multimer were using identical input data. The success can be attributed to the diversified sampling using dropout with different settings and, in particular, the use of multimer v1, which is much more susceptible to sampling compared with v2. The method is available here: http://wallnerlab.org/AFsample/.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
ColabFold - Making protein folding accessible to all
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S., & Steinegger, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.15.456425 · Cited by 9,391 · see citing works
Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning
Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.02142 · Cited by 6,471 · see citing works
Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2
Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., & Elofsson, A. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.15.460468 · Cited by 1,025 · see citing works
Sampling alternative conformational states of transporters and receptors with AlphaFold2
del Alamo, D., Sala, D., Mchaourab, H. S., & Meiler, J. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.75751 · Cited by 511 · cited 1× · see citing works
“8 Alternative methods to achieve greater diversity among generated models include increasing the number of times the prediction is recycled in the network, 9 randomly perturbing, 10 or altering the input MSA.”
MethodDeep, A., Gu, Y., Gao, Y.-Q., Ego, K. M., Herzik, M. A., Zhou, H., & Corbett, K. D. (2022) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2022.09.008 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AFsample: improving multimer prediction with AlphaFold using massive sampling
Wallner, B. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad573 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Self-citationAccurate prediction of protein assembly structure by combining AlphaFold and symmetrical docking
Jeppesen, M., & André, I. (2023) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-43681-6 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wallner, B.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Wallner, Björn
- ORCID
- Wallner, Björn
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-08-07
- Volume
- 91
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 1734-1746
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W4385620526
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 7
- FWCI
- 4.71
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse
- Linköpings Universitet
- Vetenskapsrådet (2020‐03352)
- Carl Tryggers Stiftelse för Vetenskaplig Forskning (20:453)
- 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
- AlphaFold2, dropout layers, uncertainty sampling, CASP15, protein complex structure prediction
- MeSH terms
- Furylfuramide, Uncertainty
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