Cited by 19Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Evaluating deep learning based structure prediction methods on antibody–antigen complexes

Open access
Fromm, Samuel, Ludaic, Marko, Elofsson, Arne·2026·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: AlphaFold2 significantly improved the prediction of protein complex structures. However, its accuracy is lower for interactions without coevolutionary signals, such as host–pathogen and antibody–antigen interactions. Two strategies have been developed to address this limitation: massive sampling and replacing the evoformer with the pairformer, which does not rely on coevolution, as introduced in AlphaFold3, thereby enabling more structural reasoning by the network. Results: In this study, we benchmark structure prediction methods on unseen antibody–antigen complexes. We found that increased sampling improves the chances of generating a correct protein model, roughly in a log-linear manner. However, the internal quality estimates by AlphaFold often cannot identify the best predicted structures for each target, resulting in a significant loss of performance for the top-ranked protein model compared with the best model. For all methods, a significant challenge remains the identification of the best model. We also show that AlphaFold3 outperforms AlphaFold2, Boltz-1, and Chai-1. Furthermore, AlphaFold3 performance declines significantly for complexes that lack structural similarity to the training set, indicating that it has to some extent learned to detect remote structural similarities. Availability and implementation: All code is available from github.com/samuelfromm/abag-benchmark-set/ and all data from DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17978681. The latter repository also contains the code.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btag136

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.

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.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 27 · Cited by 19

Authors
Fromm, S., Ludaic, M., & Elofsson, A.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Elofsson, Arne
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2026-03-21
Volume
42
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W7139989941
Cited by
19
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 3
FWCI
32.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Linköpings Universitet (SNIC 2021/5-297)
  • Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (2022.0032)
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2021-03979, Berzelius-2021-29)
  • National Supercomputer Centre, Linköpings Universitet
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
immune complexes, protein structure prediction, AlphaFold2, AlphaFold3, benchmarking, sampling strategy, host-pathogen interaction, model ranking
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Prediction Algorithms, Antigen-Antibody Complex, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Computational Biology

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