Cited by 8Computational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and Signaling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking HelixFold3-Predicted Holo Structures for Relative Free Energy Perturbation Calculations

Open access
Furui, Kairi, Ohue, Masahito·2025·ACS Omega

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

AlphaFold2 demonstrated remarkable capabilities for protein structure prediction. However, it is limited to downstream tasks, such as ligand docking and free energy calculations, as it cannot predict holo structures with bound ligands. AlphaFold3, a state-of-the-art protein structure prediction model, can predict the binding structures of complexes with proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules, ions, and modified residues with cutting-edge performance. However, AlphaFold3 does not currently provide access to some functions, such as the prediction of protein-ligand complex structures. To reduce the enormous costs in early small molecule drug discovery, verifying the utility of protein-ligand complex prediction methods, such as AlphaFold3, in downstream tasks like free energy perturbation calculations is crucial. In this study, we evaluated HelixFold3, designed to emulate AlphaFold3, in predicting holo and apo structures' complex formations and examined its utility in free energy perturbation calculations. Regarding the complex structure prediction performance of the 8 targets from Wang \etal's FEP benchmark, HelixFold3 showed superior performance to AlphaFold2 and existing methods. Predicting a holo structure rather than an apo structure resulted in higher binding site prediction accuracy. Furthermore, using HelixFold3 predicted structures in practical situations, where binding free energies of all derivatives were estimated, both structures achieved accuracies comparable to crystal structures. Additionally, novel derivatives not included in the training data were accurately predicted, demonstrating that free energy calculations using these novel structures are sufficiently usable.

Overview

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/acsomega.4c11413

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Superposition of the HelixFold3 predicted holo structure (green), apo structure (white), and crystal structure (magenta).
Figure 1 Superposition of the HelixFold3 predicted holo structure (green), apo structure (white), and crystal structure (magenta).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Ligand docking results for protein–ligand complex prediction methods. (a) Ligand root-mean-square deviation (L-RMSD). (b) Kabsch RMSD.28 (c) Centroid distance. L-RMSD is the root-mean-square error between the atoms of the predicted ligand and crystal ligand. Kabsch RMSD is the minimum RMSD when translating and rotating the predicted ligand. Centroid distance is the distance between the centroids of the predicted ligand and the crystal ligand.
Figure 2 Ligand docking results for protein–ligand complex prediction methods. (a) Ligand root-mean-square deviation (L-RMSD). (b) Kabsch RMSD.28 (c) Centroid distance. L-RMSD is the root-mean-square error between the atoms of the predicted ligand and crystal ligand. Kabsch RMSD is the minimum RMSD when translating and rotating the predicted ligand. Centroid distance is the distance between the centroids of the predicted ligand and the crystal ligand.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Comparison of predicted structures of ColabFold and HelixFold3’s holo and apo structures with crystal structures. (a) Global RMSD. (b) Binding site RMSD. The RMSD values for the global and binding sites were calculated with only the Cα atoms. Binding sites are defined as residues within 5 Å of the ligand in the reference structure.
Figure 3 Comparison of predicted structures of ColabFold and HelixFold3’s holo and apo structures with crystal structures. (a) Global RMSD. (b) Binding site RMSD. The RMSD values for the global and binding sites were calculated with only the Cα atoms. Binding sites are defined as residues within 5 Å of the ligand in the reference structure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Scatter plots of experimental ΔG and predicted ΔG for the apo and holo structures of HelixFold3 and the crystal structure. The dark gray area indicates a range of ±1.0 kcal/mol, and the light gray area indicates a range of ±2.0 kcal/mol.
Figure 4 Scatter plots of experimental ΔG and predicted ΔG for the apo and holo structures of HelixFold3 and the crystal structure. The dark gray area indicates a range of ±1.0 kcal/mol, and the light gray area indicates a range of ±2.0 kcal/mol.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Performance of Flare FEP for the apo and holo structures of HelixFold3 and the crystal structure. (a) Mean unsigned error (MUE). (b) Kendall’s τ. (c) Pearson’s correlation coefficient R2. Error bars indicate 90% confidence intervals calculated by 10,000 bootstrap samplings.
Figure 5 Performance of Flare FEP for the apo and holo structures of HelixFold3 and the crystal structure. (a) Mean unsigned error (MUE). (b) Kendall’s τ. (c) Pearson’s correlation coefficient R2. Error bars indicate 90% confidence intervals calculated by 10,000 bootstrap samplings.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Distribution of ligand RMSD of predicted structures for the derivative set. HF3(Holo) shows the distribution of five predicted structures with the crystal ligand as a box plot, and HF3-Derivatives shows the distribution for the entire derivative set of Wang et al.’s benchmark set as a violin plot. Ligand RMSD is calculated for the maximum common substructure between the crystal ligand and the derivative.
Figure 6 Distribution of ligand RMSD of predicted structures for the derivative set. HF3(Holo) shows the distribution of five predicted structures with the crystal ligand as a box plot, and HF3-Derivatives shows the distribution for the entire derivative set of Wang et al.’s benchmark set as a violin plot. Ligand RMSD is calculated for the maximum common substructure between the crystal ligand and the derivative.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 7 Superposition of the predicted complex structure by HelixFold3 with the worst ligand RMSD in the JNK1 derivative set (green) and the crystal structure (purple). The ligand is 18627-1.
Figure 7 Superposition of the predicted complex structure by HelixFold3 with the worst ligand RMSD in the JNK1 derivative set (green) and the crystal structure (purple). The ligand is 18627-1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 8 Relationship between the ligand RMSD and experimental binding free energy for the JNK1 derivative set.
Figure 8 Relationship between the ligand RMSD and experimental binding free energy for the JNK1 derivative set.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 9 Comparison of the predicted structures and crystal structures for the derivative set. (a) Global RMSD. (b) Binding site RMSD. HF3(Holo) shows the distribution of five predicted structures with the crystal ligand as a box plot, and HF3-Derivatives shows the distribution for the entire derivative set of Wang et al.’s benchmark set as a violin plot.
Figure 9 Comparison of the predicted structures and crystal structures for the derivative set. (a) Global RMSD. (b) Binding site RMSD. HF3(Holo) shows the distribution of five predicted structures with the crystal ligand as a box plot, and HF3-Derivatives shows the distribution for the entire derivative set of Wang et al.’s benchmark set as a violin plot.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 10 Performance of Flare FEP for the predicted structures selected from the derivative set [HF3(Holo) is the result for the crystal ligand and HF3(Derivative) is the result for the predicted structure of the selected derivative]. (a) Mean unsigned error (MUE). (b) Kendall’s τ. (c) Pearson’s correlation coefficient R2.
Figure 10 Performance of Flare FEP for the predicted structures selected from the derivative set [HF3(Holo) is the result for the crystal ligand and HF3(Derivative) is the result for the predicted structure of the selected derivative]. (a) Mean unsigned error (MUE). (b) Kendall’s τ. (c) Pearson’s correlation coefficient R2.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. 10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Liu, L.; Zhang, S.; Xue, Y.; Ye, X.; Zhu, K.; Li, Y.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, X.; Fang, X. Technical Report of HelixFold3 for Biomolecular Structure Prediction. arXiv preprint, arXiv:2408.16975 , 2024. · arXiv
  3. 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00839 · DOI
  4. 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01270 · DOI
  5. 10.1002/pro.4530 · DOI
  6. 10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00796 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1039/D3SC04185A · DOI
  8. 10.1002/jcc.21334 · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1007/s10822-013-9678-y · DOI
  10. 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01634 · DOI
  11. 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00255 · DOI
  12. 10.1002/jcc.20035 · DOI
  13. 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(20000130)21:2<132::AID-JCC5>3.0.CO;2-P · DOI
  14. 10.1063/1.445869 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41467-018-04964-5 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1093/nar/28.1.235 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1038/s41467-024-48837-6 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty1057 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1021/ct300857j · DOI
  21. 10.1107/S0567739476001873 · DOI
  22. Lu, W.; Zhang, J.; Rao, J.; Zhang, Z.; Zheng, S. AlphaFold3, a secret sauce for predicting mutational effects on protein-protein interactions. bioRxiv , 202410.1101/2024.05.25.595871. · DOI

Metadata

Authors
Furui, K., & Ohue, M.
Affiliations
Institute of Science Tokyo (JP)
Corresponding author
Ohue, Masahito
Venue
ACS Omega
Published
2025-03-11
Volume
10
Issue
11
Pages
11411-11420
ISSN
2470-1343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408327279
Cited by
8
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
4.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • ACS Omega (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (JP24ama121026)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JP23H04880, JP23H04887, JP24KJ1091)
  • Japan Science and Technology Corporation (JPMJFR216J)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › 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
AlphaFold3, free energy perturbation, binding affinity prediction, binding site conformation, structure-based drug design

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