How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
A crucial component in structure-based drug discovery is the availability of high-quality three-dimensional structures of the protein target. In molecular docking, whenever experimental structures were not available, in silico structural homology modeling has been the method of choice. However, using computationally predicted structures adds a further degree of uncertainty to the docking process. Recently, AlphaFold (AF), an artificial intelligence-based modeling tool, has shown impressive results in terms of model accuracy within the field of ab initio protein structure prediction. This outstanding success prompted us to evaluate how accurate AF models are from the perspective of docking-based drug discovery. We compared the performance of AF models in high-throughput docking (HTD) to their corresponding experimental PDB structures using a benchmark set of 16 targets spanning different protein families and binding site properties. Four docking programs and two consensus techniques were used to evaluate the HTD performance. The AF models showed consistently worse performance than their corresponding PDB structures, with zero enrichment factor values in several cases. While AlphaFold shows a remarkable ability to predict protein architecture and binding site anatomy, we conclude that this is not enough to guarantee that AF models can be reliably used for HTD purposes. Moreover, we show that very small variations at the side chain level of essential ligand-binding residues have a large impact on the outcome of HTD, what suggests that post-modeling refinement strategies might be key to increase the chance of success of AF models in prospective HTD campaigns.
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
Varadi, M., Anyango, S., Deshpande, M., Nair, S., Natassia, C., Yordanova, G., Yuan, D., Stroe, O., Wood, G., Laydon, A., et al. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · Cited by 7,850 · cited 3× · see citing works
“AF-modeled structures were obtained from the AlphaFold Protein Structure Database.(30) Four docking programs were used, AutoDock 4, ICM, rDock, and PLANTS, which have different search algorithms and scoring functions.”
MethodInfluentialProtein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808 · see citing works
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., Bridgland, A., Cowie, A., Meyer, C., Laydon, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · Cited by 3,025 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Even though low pLDDT regions (pLDDT 50) were suggested to have a high likelihood of being unstructured in isolation, or only structured as part of a complex, 28 this issue clearly deserves further analysis.”
BackgroundDirectory of useful decoys, enhanced (DUD-E): better ligands and decoys for better benchmarking.
Mysinger, M. M., Carchia, M., Irwin, J. J., & Shoichet, B. K. (2012) · Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1021/jm300687e · Cited by 2,412 · 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
A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold2 applications
Akdel, M., Pires, D. E. V., Pardo, E. P., Jänes, J., Zalevsky, A. O., Mészáros, B., Bryant, P., Good, L. L., Laskowski, R. A., Pozzati, G., et al. (2022) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w · Cited by 675 · see citing works
High‐accuracy protein structure prediction in <scp>CASP14</scp>
Pereira, J., Simpkin, A. J., Hartmann, M. D., Rigden, D. J., Keegan, R. M., & Lupas, A. N. (2021) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26171 · Cited by 314 · see citing works
Benchmarking AlphaFold‐enabled molecular docking predictions for antibiotic discovery
Wong, F., Krishnan, A., Zheng, E. J., Stärk, H., Manson, A. L., Earl, A. M., Jaakkola, T., & Collins, J. J. (2022) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.15252/msb.202211081 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
AlphaFold2-aware protein–DNA binding site prediction using graph transformer
Yuan, Q., Chen, S., Rao, J., Zheng, S., Zhao, H., & Yang, Y. (2022) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbab564 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Baselious, F., Robaa, D., & Sippl, W. (2023) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2023.107700 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scardino, V., Di Filippo, J. I., & Cavasotto, C. N.
- Affiliations
- Austral University (AR)
- Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
- Corresponding author
- Cavasotto, Claudio N.
- Venue
- iScience
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2023-01
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 105920
- ISSN
- 2589-0042 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9852548
- OpenAlex
- W4313367649
- Cited by
- 207
- References
- 11
- Citations by year
- 2026: 54 · 2025: 44 · 2024: 66 · 2023: 42 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 20.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- iScience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ChemRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
- Keywords
- AlphaFold, protein structure prediction, high-throughput docking, structure-based drug design, homology modeling, model accuracy, benchmarking, consensus docking
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
