Are Deep Learning Structural Models Sufficiently Accurate for Free-Energy Calculations? Application of FEP+ to AlphaFold2-Predicted Structures
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
ABSTRACT The availability of AlphaFold2 has led to great excitement in the scientific community - particularly among drug hunters - due to the ability of the algorithm to predict protein structures with high accuracy. However, beyond globally accurate protein structure prediction, it remains to be determined whether ligand binding sites are predicted with sufficient accuracy in these structures to be useful in supporting computationally driven drug discovery programs. We explored this question by performing free energy perturbation (FEP) calculations on a set of well-studied protein-ligand complexes, where AlphaFold2 predictions were performed by removing all templates with >30% identity to the target protein from the training set. We observed that in most cases, the ΔΔG values for ligand transformations calculated with FEP, using these prospective AlphaFold2 structures, were comparable in accuracy to the corresponding calculations previously carried out using X-ray structures. We conclude that under the right circumstances, AlphaFold2 modeled structures are accurate enough to be used by physics-based methods such as FEP, in typical lead optimization stages of a drug discovery program.
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
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 · see citing works
Protein 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
UniRef: comprehensive and non-redundant UniProt reference clusters
Suzek, B. E., Huang, H., McGarvey, P., Mazumder, R., & Wu, C. H. (2007) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm098 · Cited by 1,613 · 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
Protein-level assembly increases protein sequence recovery from metagenomic samples manyfold
Steinegger, M., Mirdita, M., & Söding, J. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0437-4 · Cited by 445 · see citing works
Comparative modeling for protein structure prediction
Ginalski, K. (2006) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2006.02.003 · Cited by 296 · see citing works
Abel, R., Wang, L., Mobley, D. L., & Friesner, R. A. (2017) · Current Topics in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/1568026617666170414142131 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Haufe, Y., Kuruva, V., Samanani, Z., Lokaj, G., Kamnesky, G., Shadamarshan, P., Shahoei, R., Katz, D., Sampson, J. M., Pusch, M., et al. (2023) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.3c00506 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Beuming, T., Martín, H., Díaz-Rovira, A. M., Díaz, L., Guallar, V., & Ray, S. S.
- Affiliations
- Latham Biopharm Group, 101 Main Street, Suite 1400, Cambridge, Massachusetts 02142, United States
- NOSTRUM BIODISCOVERY S.L., E-08029 Barcelona, Spain
- Barcelona Supercomputing Center (ES)
- RA Capital, 200 Berkeley Street, Boston Massachusetts 02116, United States
- Corresponding author
- Beuming, Thijs
- Ray, Soumya S.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2022-09-13
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 4351-4360
- ISSN
- 1549-9596 (ISSN-L)
- 1549-960X
- OpenAlex
- W4295757800
- Cited by
- 61
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 7.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovaci?n (PTQ2018-009991)
- RA Capital
- 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
- AlphaFold2, free energy perturbation, protein-ligand binding free energy, ligand binding site prediction, deep learning protein structure prediction, drug discovery, lead optimization, protein-ligand complex, binding affinity
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Ligands, Models, Structural, Prospective Studies, Protein Binding, Proteins, Thermodynamics, Molecular Dynamics Simulation
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