Cited by 42Protein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery MethodsRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

Effective Molecular Dynamics from Neural Network-Based Structure Prediction Models

Open access
Jussupow, Alexander, Kaila, Ville R. I.·2023·Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Recent breakthroughs in neural network-based structure prediction methods, such as AlphaFold2 and RoseTTAFold, have dramatically improved the quality of computational protein structure prediction. These models also provide statistical confidence scores that can estimate uncertainties in the predicted structures, but it remains unclear to what extent these scores are related to the intrinsic conformational dynamics of proteins. Here, we compare AlphaFold2 prediction scores with explicit large-scale molecular dynamics simulations of 28 one- and two-domain proteins with varying degrees of flexibility. We demonstrate a strong correlation between the statistical prediction scores and the explicit motion derived from extensive atomistic molecular dynamics simulations and further derive an elastic network model based on the statistical scores of AlphFold2 (AF-ENM), which we benchmark in combination with coarse-grained molecular dynamics simulations. We show that our AF-ENM method reproduces the global protein dynamics with improved accuracy, providing a powerful way to derive effective molecular dynamics using neural network-based structure prediction models.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01027

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jussupow, A., & Kaila, V. R. I.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Kaila, Ville R. I.
Venue
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
Published
2023-03-24
Volume
19
Issue
7
Pages
1965-1975
ISSN
  • 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-9626
OpenAlex
W4360829321
Cited by
42
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (2019.0043, 2019.0251)
  • Cancerfonden (pj200968)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
protein conformational dynamics, AlphaFold2, elastic network model, coarse-grained molecular dynamics, protein flexibility
MeSH terms
Molecular Conformation, Motion, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer, 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