The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating protein complex model accuracy using graph transformers and pairwise similarity graphs
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Motivation: Estimation of protein complex structure accuracy is essential for effective structural model selection in structural biology applications such as protein function analysis and drug design. Despite the success of structure prediction methods such as AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3, selecting top-quality structural models from large model pools remains challenging. Results: We present GATE, a novel method that uses graph transformers on pairwise model similarity graphs to predict the quality (accuracy) of complex structural models. By integrating single-model and multimodel quality features, GATE captures intrinsic model characteristics and intermodel geometric similarities to make robust predictions. On the dataset of the 15th Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP15), GATE achieved the highest Pearson’s correlation (0.748) and the lowest ranking loss (0.1191) compared with existing methods. In the blind CASP16 experiment, GATE ranked fifth based on the sum of z-scores, with a Pearson’s correlation of 0.7076 (first), a Spearman’s correlation of 0.4514 (fourth), a ranking loss of 0.1221 (third), and an area under the curve score of 0.6680 (third) on per-target TM-score-based metrics. Additionally, GATE also performed consistently on large in-house datasets generated by extensive AlphaFold-based sampling with MULTICOM4, confirming its robustness and practical applicability in real-world model selection scenarios. Availability and implementation: GATE is available at https://github.com/BioinfoMachineLearning/GATE.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
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
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.07.479398 · Cited by 2,598
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · Cited by 2,596
The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design
Alford, R. F., Leaver-Fay, A., Jeliazkov, J. R., O’Meara, M. J., DiMaio, F. P., Park, H., Shapovalov, M. V., Renfrew, P. D., Mulligan, V. K., Kappel, K., et al. (2017) · Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation · doi:10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · Cited by 1,532
DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models
Basu, S., & Wallner, B. (2016) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · Cited by 460
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Cao, 2017, Qacon: single model quality assessment using protein structural and contact information with machine learning techniques, Bioinformatics, 33, 586, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw694 · DOI
- Cao, 2015, Large-scale model quality assessment for improving protein tertiary structure prediction, Bioinformatics, 31, i116, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv235 · DOI
- Chen, 2023, 3d-equivariant graph neural networks for protein model quality assessment, Bioinformatics, 39, btad030, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad030 · DOI · Paper page
- Chen, 2022, Distema: distance map-based estimation of single protein model accuracy with attentive 2d convolutional neural network, BMC Bioinformatics, 23, 141, 10.1186/s12859-022-04683-1 · DOI
- Chen, 2023, A gated graph transformer for protein complex structure quality assessment and its performance in casp15, Bioinformatics, 39, i308, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad203 · DOI
- Cheng, 2019, Estimation of model accuracy in casp13, Proteins, 87, 1361, 10.1002/prot.25767 · DOI
- Edmunds, 2023, Estimation of model accuracy in casp15 using the m odfolddock server, Proteins, 91, 1871, 10.1002/prot.26532 · DOI
- Edmunds, 2024, Benchmarking of alphafold2 accuracy self-estimates as indicators of empirical model quality and ranking: a comparison with independent model quality assessment programmes, Bioinformatics, 40, btae491, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae491 · DOI
- Evans, 2021, Protein complex prediction with alphafold-multimer, bioRxiv, 10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · DOI · Paper page
- Liu, 2025, Deepumqa-x: comprehensive and insightful estimation of model accuracy for protein single-chain and complex, Nucl Acids Res, 53, W219, 10.1093/nar/gkaf380 · DOI
- Liu, 2023, Improving alphafold2-based protein tertiary structure prediction with multicom in casp15, Commun Chem, 6, 188, 10.1038/s42004-023-00991-6 · DOI · Paper page
- Liu, 2023, Enhancing alphafold-multimer-based protein complex structure prediction with multicom in casp15, Commun Biol, 6, 1140, 10.1038/s42003-023-05525-3 · DOI · Paper page
- McGuffin, 2008, The modfold server for the quality assessment of protein structural models, Bioinformatics, 24, 586, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn014 · DOI
- McGuffin, 2025, Prediction and quality assessment of protein quaternary structure models using the multifold2 and modfolddock2 servers, Nucleic Acids Res, 53, W472, 10.1093/nar/gkaf336 · DOI
- Mirabello, 2024, Unmasking alphafold to integrate experiments and predictions in multimeric complexes, Nat Commun, 15, 8724, 10.1038/s41467-024-52951-w · DOI
- Morehead, 2024, Protein structure accuracy estimation using geometry-complete perceptron networks, Protein Sci, 33, e4932, 10.1002/pro.4932 · DOI
- Olechnovič, 2013, Cad-score: a new contact area difference-based function for evaluation of protein structural models, Proteins, 81, 149, 10.1002/prot.24172 · DOI
- Olechnovič, 2023, Voroif-gnn: voronoi tessellation-derived protein–protein interface assessment using a graph neural network, Proteins, 91, 1879, 10.1002/prot.26554 · DOI · Paper page
- Roy, 2023, Combining pairwise structural similarity and deep learning interface contact prediction to estimate protein complex model accuracy in casp15, Proteins, 91, 1889, 10.1002/prot.26542 · DOI
- Shuvo, 2020, Qdeep: distance-based protein model quality estimation by residue-level ensemble error classifications using stacked deep residual neural networks, Bioinformatics, 36, i285, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa455 · DOI
- Studer, 2023, Assessment of the assessment—all about complexes, Proteins, 91, 1850, 10.1002/prot.26612 · DOI
- Wallner, 2003, Can correct protein models be identified?, Protein Sci, 12, 1073, 10.1110/ps.0236803 · DOI
- Wang, 2009, Evaluating the absolute quality of a single protein model using structural features and support vector machines, Proteins, 75, 638, 10.1002/prot.22275 · DOI
- Wu, 2020, A novel score for highly accurate and efficient prediction of native protein structures, bioRxiv, 10.1101/2020.04.23.056945 · DOI
- Zhang, 2022, Us-align: universal structure alignments of proteins, nucleic acids, and macromolecular complexes, Nat Methods, 19, 1109, 10.1038/s41592-022-01585-1 · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., Neupane, P., & Cheng, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Jianlin
- Venue
- Bioinformatics Advances
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-12-26
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- vbaf180-vbaf180
- ISSN
- 2635-0041 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12342149
- OpenAlex
- W4412712728
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Bioinformatics Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (DBI2308699)
- National Institutes of Health (R01GM093123)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein complex structure, model selection, graph transformer, CASP15, CASP16, AlphaFold, TM-score, ranking loss
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