Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1038/s41467-022-28865-w · Paper page
Abstract
Predicting the structure of interacting protein chains is a fundamental step towards understanding protein function. Unfortunately, no computational method can produce accurate structures of protein complexes. AlphaFold2, has shown unprecedented levels of accuracy in modelling single chain protein structures. Here, we apply AlphaFold2 for the prediction of heterodimeric protein complexes. We find that the AlphaFold2 protocol together with optimized multiple sequence alignments, generate models with acceptable quality (DockQ≥0.23) for 63% of the dimers. From the predicted interfaces we create a simple function to predict the DockQ score which distinguishes acceptable from incorrect models as well as interacting from non-interacting proteins with state-of-art accuracy. We find that, using the predicted DockQ scores, we can identify 51% of all interacting pairs at 1% FPR. The protocol can be found at: https://gitlab.com/ElofssonLab/FoldDock .
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
AlphaFold2, combined with optimized paired MSAs, can fold-and-dock many heterodimeric protein complexes and predict model quality from the resulting interfaces. The derived pDockQ score separates acceptable from incorrect models and interacting from non-interacting proteins with state-of-art accuracy.
Key findings
- On the test set, AF2 + paired MSAs reached a success rate of 57.8% (856/1481), rising to 61.7% when five seeds were ranked by pDockQ; block diagonalization + paired MSAs with top-ranked models reached 62.7%. The best development-set result was 39.4% for AF2 + paired MSAs.
- pDockQ, a sigmoidal fit to interface pLDDT × log(interface contacts), predicted DockQ with an average error of 0.11 and separated acceptable models (DockQ ≥ 0.23) from incorrect ones with AUC 0.95; 31% of models were acceptable at 1% error and 54% at 10% error.
- For interacting vs non-interacting proteins (1481 positives, 5694 negatives), pDockQ gave AUC 0.87 and identified 51% of interacting pairs at 1% FPR, compared with 27%, 18%, and 13% for interface pLDDT, interface contacts, and interface residues, respectively.
- Performance varied by group: bacteria 73.7%, archaea 84.5%, eukarya 61%, virus 60%; E. coli 76.4%, S. cerevisiae 66.2%, H. sapiens 58.1%; helix interfaces 62%, sheet 59%, loop 53%; largest interface tertile 74% vs smallest 47%. AF2 outperformed tested docking methods, while AF-multimer reached 72.2% but was trained on the same data as the test set.
Methods
- AF2 was used to model heterodimeric complexes with a chain break, no templates, and relaxation off. The development set contained 216 Dockground complexes; the test set contained 1481 complexes; additional sets included six CASP14 heterodimers, eight novel PDB complexes, and 5694 non-interacting pairs (3989 E. coli + 1705 mammalian).
- MSA strategies compared default AF2 MSAs, organism-paired MSAs, block diagonalization MSAs, and combinations; AF2 model_1 vs model_1_ptm and different recycle/ensemble configurations were tested, with five seeds for the best strategy.
- Models were assessed with DockQ (acceptable ≥ 0.23), ROC/AUC, and pDockQ; comparisons included RoseTTAFold, GRAMM, MDockPP, TMdock, and AF-multimer.
Limitations
- Stated: only heterodimeric states are considered; alternative oligomeric states and larger biological assemblies are outside scope. Stated: interaction/non-interaction separation needs extension to compare interactions within individual organisms. Stated: the development vs test success-rate discrepancy (39.4% vs 57.8%) suggests unknown selection bias, and the development set is much smaller (216 vs 1481).
- Evident: AF-multimer comparison is difficult because it was trained using the same data as the test set. Evident: the initial non-interacting set was only E. coli while positives were mainly eukaryotic, so the authors added mammalian negatives to obtain a more realistic estimate.
- Evident: several analyses excluded complexes due to memory limits, MSA errors, missing Cβs, or DSSP failures (e.g., final test set 1481; DSSP 1391; RoseTTAFold 1455; AF-multimer 1458), which may affect generalizability.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
17 of 29 cited sources checked · 4 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
- Findingown data
The MSA generation process can be sped up substantially at no performance loss (performance increase of 1% success rate) by fusing MSAs from two HHblits runs on Uniclust30 instead of using the MSAs from AF2.
“We find that the MSA generation process can be sped up substantially at no performance loss (performance increase of 1% SR) by simply fusing MSAs from two HHblits34 runs on Uniclust3035 instead of using the MSAs from AF2.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked - Interpretationcitation
The higher performance in prokaryotes is consistent with previous observations regarding the availability of evolutionary information in prokaryotes compared to Eukarya.
“The higher performance in prokaryotes is consistent with previous observations regarding the availability of evolutionary information in prokaryotes compared to Eukarya27 (Supplementary Fig. 1).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] source
The Results section on PNN removal and the Discussion address grid-cell activity in rats, not evolutionary information or performance comparisons between prokaryotes and Eukarya. Searches for those terms and the claim’s distinctive phrase found no passage addressing the claim in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
The study of AF2's ability to separate interacting and non-interacting proteins here contains more extensive data than recent studies.
“The study of AF2s ability to separate interacting and non-interacting proteins here contains more extensive data than recent studies27.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] source
The Results section, “Reduced pairwise grid cell stability in a novel environment” (page unavailable), discusses correlations between rat grid cells after perineuronal-net degradation. Searches for AF2 and for interacting versus non-interacting proteins found no passage addressing that topic or comparing the extent of data with recent studies. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Findingcitation
Another recently published method obtains an AUC of 0.76 on this set.
“Another recently published method obtains AUC 0.76 on this set27.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] source
The Results section reports 0.76 as a median spatial correlation for control grid cells, not as an AUC. A search for “AUC 0.76” and “area under the curve” found no passage reporting an AUC for a method on the cited set; the paper’s reported analyses concern grid-cell activity. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
There are currently 64,006 pairwise human protein interactions in the human reference interactome.
“There are currently 64,006 pairwise human protein interactions in the human reference interactome36.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [36] source
The Results section reports counts for the E. coli interactome, not a human reference interactome. Searches for “64,006 pairwise human protein interactions” and “human reference interactome” found no passage in our copy giving the claimed human interaction count. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
Pairing the correct sequences should result in MSAs containing inter-chain co-evolutionary information.
“Pairing the correct sequences should result in MSAs containing inter-chain co-evolutionary information27.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] source
The Methods section on spatiotemporal pairwise cross-correlations and the Results section on grid-cell stability concern correlations between neuronal firing patterns, not paired sequences. Searches for MSAs, inter-chain co-evolutionary information, and protein-sequence pairing found no passage addressing the claim; page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
- Premisecitation
The second non-interacting set contains 1964 unique mammalian protein complexes filtered against IntAct from Negatome.
“The second set contains 1964 unique mammalian protein complexes filtered against the IntAct43 dataset from Negatome31.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [43] source
The Abstract and §2.1 Source data describe UniRef protein-sequence clusters built from UniProtKB and UniParc, not a set of non-interacting mammalian protein complexes. Searches for “1964,” “Negatome,” and “IntAct” found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed set or filtering step. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [31] 1997, Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex, Proteins
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisecitation
The first non-interacting dataset contains 3989 non-interacting pairs from E. coli, identified by no reported interaction signal in Yeast Two-Hybrid Experiments and complexes whose individual proteins were found in different APMS benchmark complexes.
“Two methods were used to identify non-interacting proteins, first a set of proteins with no reported interaction signal in Yeast Two-Hybrid Experiments41 and secondly complexes whose individual proteins were found in different APMS benchmark complexes42. This dataset contains in total 3989 non-interacting pairs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [41] source
The Results (‘Sensitivity benchmark’; page unavailable) describe a SCOP-domain benchmark for detecting homologous sequences, not a dataset of non-interacting E. coli protein pairs. Searches for ‘3989 non-interacting pairs’ and for yeast two-hybrid and APMS methods found no passage supporting the claimed dataset or its construction. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [42] 2020, MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020, Nucleic Acids Res
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Findingown data§ Results and discussion
Combining paired and AF2 MSAs is superior to using them separately.
“It is thereby evident that combining both paired and AF2 MSAs is superior to using them separately.”
- Also stated in: § Test set performance · hedged
“Using the combination of AF2 and paired MSAs increases performance, suggesting that AF2 gains both from larger and paired MSAs, although it often can manage with less information.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Test set performance · hedged
- Findingown data§ Results and discussion
AF2 outperforms all other tested docking methods by a large margin.
“What is most striking is that AF2 outperforms all other tested docking methods by a large margin (Fig. 1, Table 2).”
- Also stated in: § Findings and future prospects · boosted
“Even using the default settings, it is clear that AF2 is superior to all other tested docking methods, including other Fold and Dock methods17,24, methods based on shape complementarity30,32 and template-based docking.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Findings and future prospects · boosted
- Findingown data
pDockQ distinguishes acceptable from incorrect models with an AUC of 0.95.
“From the predicted interfaces we create a simple function to predict the DockQ score which distinguishes acceptable from incorrect models as well as interacting from non-interacting proteins with state-of-art accuracy.”
- Also stated in: § Distinguishing acceptable from incorrect models · plain
“The AUC using pDockQ as a separator is identical to the combination of plDDT with the logarithm of the interface contacts, 0.95 (Fig. 2a).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Distinguishing acceptable from incorrect models · plain
- Findingown data
Increasing both the number of interface contacts and the average interface plDDT results in higher DockQ scores for the test set.
“Figure 2b shows that increasing both the number of interface contacts and the average interface plDDT results in higher DockQ scores for the test set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the CASP14 chains, four out of six pairs display a DockQ score larger than 0.23 (success rate of 67%).
“For the CASP14 chains, four out of six pairs display a DockQ score larger than 0.23 (SR of 67%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The average plDDT of the entire complex results in an AUC of 0.66 for separating correct from incorrect models.
“Interestingly, the average plDDT of the entire complex only results in an AUC of 0.66, suggesting that both single chains in a complex are often predicted very well, while their relative orientation may still be incorrect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The development set from Dockground benchmark 438 contains 219 protein interactions for which both unbound and bound structures are available.
“There are 219 protein interactions for which both unbound (single-chain) and bound (interacting chains) structures are available.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The success rate is higher in E. coli (76.4%) than in H. sapiens or S. cerevisiae (58.1% and 66.2%, respectively).
“The SR is higher in E.coli (76.4%) than in H. sapiens or S. cerevisiae (58.1% and 66.2% respectively).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The average deviation for individual models is DockQ = 0.08 when comparing the best and worst models for a target.
“However, the average deviation for individual models is DockQ = 0.08 when comparing the best and worst models for a target (Fig. 2d), i.e., there is some randomness to the success for an individual pair.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Using predicted DockQ scores, 51% of all interacting pairs can be identified at 1% FPR.
“We find that, using the predicted DockQ scores, we can identify 51% of all interacting pairs at 1% FPR.”
- Also stated in: § Identifying interacting proteins · plain
“Importantly, pDockQ provides a better separation at low FPRs, enabling a TPR of 51% at FPR of 1% compared to 27%, 18 and 13% for the interface plDDT, number of interface contacts and residues, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Identifying interacting proteins · plain
- Findingown data
There is a big difference between the performance of AF2 on the development and test sets, reporting 39.4% success rate vs 57.8% for AF2+paired MSAs.
“There is a big difference between the performance of AF2 on the development and test sets, reporting 39.4% SR vs 57.8% for the AF2 + Paired MSAs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
pDockQ distinguishes 3989 non-interacting E. coli proteins from 1481 truly interacting test set proteins with an AUC of 0.87.
“Using the best separator from the model ranking, the pDockQ, it is possible to distinguish the 3989 non-interacting proteins from Escherichia coli and the 1481 truly interacting proteins from the test set with an AUC of 0.87.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 3989 E. coli proteins used as negatives are truly non-interacting.
- Rests on an assumption: The 1481 test set proteins used as positives are truly interacting.
- Findingown data
The success rate for Saccharomyces cerevisiae is better than for Homo sapiens (66% vs 58%).
“Further, the SRs for Saccharomyces cerevisiae is better than for Homo sapiens (66% vs 58%, Fig. 3d).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
pDockQ provides better separation at low FPRs, enabling a TPR of 51% at FPR of 1% compared to 27%, 18% and 13% for interface plDDT, number of interface contacts and residues, respectively.
“Importantly, pDockQ provides a better separation at low FPRs, enabling a TPR of 51% at FPR of 1% compared to 27%, 18 and 13% for the interface plDDT, number of interface contacts and residues, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 3989 E. coli proteins used as negatives are truly non-interacting.
- Rests on an assumption: The 1481 test set proteins used as positives are truly interacting.
- Findingcitation
The computational cost to run all of this is approximately 5 days on an Nvidia A100 system.
“The computational cost to run all of this is ~5 days on an Nvidia A100 system and has since the development of the pipeline presented here, deemed FoldDock, been applied37.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [37] source
- Findingown data
The success rate for docking proteins without templates is 50%.
“The SR for docking the proteins without templates is 50%.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Paired MSA Neff has a stronger influence on the outcome than the Neff of the AF2 MSAs.
“Also, paired MSA Neff (Fig. 3c) has a stronger influence on the outcome than the Neff of the AF2 MSAs (Supplementary Fig. 2a).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
If the maximal DockQ score across all models is used, the success rate would be 62.9%.
“If the maximal DockQ score across all models is used, the SR would be 62.9%.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
MSAs with stronger interface signals show higher success rates, even when the paired MSAs are used in combination with the AF2 MSAs.
“MSAs with stronger interface signals show higher SRs, even if the paired MSAs are used in combination with the AF2 MSAs (Supplementary Fig. 3).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
For PDB ID 5D1M, the DockQ scores are 0.01, 0.02 and 0.90 for AF2, paired, and AF2 + paired MSAs, respectively.
“The DockQ scores are 0.01, 0.02 and 0.90 for AF2, paired, and AF2 + paired MSAs, respectively.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The fitted pDockQ parameters are L = 0.724, x0 = 152.611, k = 0.052 and b = 0.018.
“we obtain L = 0.724, x0 = 152.611, k = 0.052 and b = 0.018.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Interfaces with more flexible structures are harder to predict.
“The loop interface SR of 53% is substantially lower than the others, suggesting that interfaces with more flexible structures are harder to predict.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The test set complexes share less than 30% sequence identity.
“These complexes share <30% sequence identity, have a resolution between 1–5 Å and constitute unique pairs of PFAM domains (no single protein pair have PFAM domains matching that of any other pair).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
If 31% of the human reference interactome interactions can be predicted at an error rate of 1%, this results in the structure of 19,842 human heterodimeric protein structures.
“If 31% of these can be predicted at an error rate of 1%, this results in the structure of 19,842 human heterodimeric protein structures.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 31% success rate at 1% FPR observed on the test set applies to the human reference interactome.
- Interpretationreasoning
These results are probably overstated because the negative set only contains bacterial proteins while the positive set is mainly eukaryotic.
“However, these results are probably overstated since the negative set only contains bacterial proteins, while the positive set is mainly eukaryotic.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
The discrepancy between development and test set performance suggests that performance is highly dependent on the specific interacting partners being predicted.
“This discrepancy suggests that the performance is highly dependent on the specific interacting partners being predicted.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
The performance of GRAMM, TMdock and MDockPP is likely due to their use of the bound form of the proteins, giving high shape complementarity and effectively providing the answer.
“The reason GRAMM, TMdock and MDockPP reach this level of performance is likely due to the use of the bound form of the proteins, resulting in very high shape complementarity and therefore having the “answer” provided in a way.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductown data
The test set complexes constitute unique pairs of PFAM domains.
“These complexes share <30% sequence identity, have a resolution between 1–5 Å and constitute unique pairs of PFAM domains (no single protein pair have PFAM domains matching that of any other pair).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Interpretationown data
Fast MSA generation circumvents the main computational bottleneck in the pipeline.
“Fast MSA generation circumvents the main computational bottleneck in the pipeline.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The manual stringent set contains proteins annotated from the literature with experimental support describing the lack of protein interaction.
“This data deemed “the manual stringent set” contains proteins annotated from the literature with experimental support describing the lack of protein interaction.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [31] 1997, Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex, Proteins
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Premisereasoning
An unpaired MSA has a limited inter-chain signal since the chains are treated in isolation.
“An unpaired MSA has a limited inter-chain signal since the chains are treated in isolation.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
- May combine two claims. 38
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 36
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
May combine two claims.
FindingcitationAlphaFold2 can predict the structure of many heterodimeric protein complexes, although it is trained to predict the structure of individual protein chains.
“Here we show that AlphaFold216 (AF2) can predict the structure of many heterodimeric protein complexes, although it is trained to predict the structure of individual protein chains.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature source
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe test set used 1661 protein complexes with known interfaces from a recent study.
“We used 1661 protein complexes with known interfaces from a recent study27 to test the developed pipeline.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [27] source
The Results section on grid cell representations in familiar environments reports recorded neuronal units, not protein complexes. Searches for “1661 protein complexes with known interfaces” and “protein complexes interface pipeline test set” found no passage in our copy addressing the claimed test set. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationNo additional constraints are implemented in AF2 to pull two chains in contact, meaning that chain interactions and interface sizes are exclusively determined by the amount of inter-chain signals extracted by the predictor.
“Interestingly, no additional constraints are implemented in AF2 to pull two chains in contact, meaning that chain interactions (and subsequently interface sizes) are exclusively determined by the amount of inter-chain signals extracted by the predictor.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature source
The “MSA depth and cross-chain contacts” section discusses how contacts with other chains affect prediction accuracy and shows a homotrimer predicted without input stoichiometry. It does not say whether AF2 applies constraints to bring chains together or whether inter-chain signals exclusively determine interactions and interface sizes. Searches for those constraints, signals, and interface size found no passage addressing that claim. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPerforming model relaxation did not increase performance in the AF2 paper and was therefore ignored to save computational cost.
“We note that performing model relaxation did not increase performance in the AF2 paper16 and was, therefore, ignored to save computational cost.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAF2 has been shown to perform well for single chains without templates and has reported higher accuracy than template-based methods even when robust templates are available.
“Further, AF2 has been shown to perform well for single chains without templates and has reported higher accuracy than template-based methods even when robust templates are available16.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [16] 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAs the bound form of the proteins is used, this should represent an easy case for GRAMM-based docking, and performance drops significantly when unbound structures or models are used.
“As the bound form of the proteins is used, this should represent an easy case for GRAMM-based docking, and performance drops significantly when unbound structures or models are used53.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [53] 2016, DockQ: A Quality Measure for Protein-Protein Docking Models, PLoS One source
The Materials and Methods (Training set; page unavailable) describes docking models generated with SwarmDock, while the Results and Discussion evaluates DockQ as a quality measure. Searches for GRAMM and bound-versus-unbound docking performance found no passage supporting the claimed performance drop. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationAF2 model_1_ptm is a fine-tuned version of model_1 that predicts the TMscore and alignment errors.
“The second model, model_1_ptm, is a fine-tuned version of model_1 that predicts the TMscore52 and alignment errors16.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [16] 2021, Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold, Nature source
The Methods > Training regimen section says the authors fine-tuned five models to add a pTM prediction objective. End-to-end structure prediction says the TM-score estimate is obtained from a pairwise error prediction. Our copy does not identify the fine-tuned model specifically as model_1_ptm or establish its relationship to a model named model_1. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [52] 2018, Contact Potential for Structure Prediction of Proteins and Protein Complexes from Potts Model, Biophys. J source
May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe RoseTTAFold pipeline for complex modelling only generates MSAs for bacterial protein complexes, while the proteins in the test set are mainly Eukaryotic.
“The RoseTTAFold pipeline for complex modelling only generates MSAs for bacterial protein complexes, while the proteins in our test set are mainly Eukaryotic.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked- cites [17] source
The ‘Direct generation of protein-protein complex models’ section says RoseTTAFold was tested on paired sequence alignments and describes a model of a human complex, but it does not say that its pipeline generates MSAs only for bacterial complexes. The source also cannot establish the composition of the citing authors’ test set. Searches for bacterial-only MSA generation and eukaryotic complexes did not resolve either point. (LLM, conf=0.72)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe atom-atom contact energy AACE is used to score and rank all poses, as this has been shown to provide better results than shape-complementarity alone.
“The atom-atom contact energy AACE18 is used to score and rank all poses, as this has been shown to provide better results than shape-complementarity alone54.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked- cites [18] source
The Introduction discusses predicting inter-residue contacts, and §2.4.2 describes ranking structural matches by TM-score. Neither addresses AACE, docking-pose ranking, or a comparison with shape complementarity. Searches for those terms in our copy found no supporting passage; page numbers were not available. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured - cites [54] source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).
Findingnone given§ Results and discussionThe fraction of correctly modelled sequences increases with larger Neff scores.
“It is clear that the fraction of correctly modelled sequences increases with larger Neff scores (Fig. 3c).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimThe quote only partly states this claim.
Findingown dataThe AlphaFold2 protocol together with optimised multiple sequence alignments generates models of acceptable quality (DockQ ≥ 0.23) for 63% of heterodimeric dimers.
“We find that the AlphaFold2 protocol together with optimised multiple sequence alignments, generate models with acceptable quality (DockQ ≥ 0.23) for 63% of the dimers.”
- Also stated in: § Findings and future prospects · plain
“Using optimised MSAs with AF2, we can accurately predict the structure of heterodimeric complexes for an unprecedented SR of 62.7% on a large test set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Also stated in: § Findings and future prospects · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe highest success rate is obtained mainly for helix interfaces (62%), followed by interfaces containing mainly sheets (59%), while the loop interface success rate is 53%.
“The highest SR is obtained mainly for helix interfaces (62%), followed by interfaces containing mainly sheets (59%). The loop interface SR of 53% is substantially lower than the others, suggesting that interfaces with more flexible structures are harder to predict.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe success rates by kingdom are Eukarya 61%, Bacteria 73.7%, Archaea 84.5%, and Virus 60%.
“The SRs for each kingdom is; Eukarya 61%, Bacteria 73.7%, Archaea 84.5%, and Virus 60% (Supplementary Fig. 1b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataAt FPR 5%, the number of interface contacts and residues report TPRs of 49% and 42%, respectively, compared to 43% for average interface plDDT and 66% for pDockQ.
“At FPR 5%, the number of interface contacts and residues report TPRs of 49 and 42%, respectively, compared to 43% for the average interface plDDT and 66% for pDockQ.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: The 3989 E. coli proteins used as negatives are truly non-interacting.
- Rests on an assumption: The 1481 test set proteins used as positives are truly interacting.
May combine two claims.
FindingcitationAF-multimer achieves the best performance on the test set, with a success rate of 72.2% and median DockQ of 0.560.
“The recently developed AF-multimer28 has the best performance (SR = 72.2%, median = 0.560, Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataBetween five different initialisations for proteins without templates, the average difference in DockQ score is 0.03, and there is no deviation in success rate, so ranking did not improve the success rate.
“Between the five different initialisations, the average difference in the DockQ score is 0.03, and there is no deviation in SR, i.e., ranking did not improve the SR.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOn the development set, the best success rate is 33.3% for AF2 MSAs and 39.4% for AF2+paired MSAs.
“The best performance is 33.3% for the AF2 MSAs and 39.4% for the AF2+ paired MSAs (Table 1).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe average success rate is 57.2% ± 0.0% and is similar for all five runs with different random seeds.
“The average SR (57.2% ± 0.0%) is similar for all five runs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
FindingcitationThe pipeline presented here has been deemed FoldDock and has since been applied.
“The computational cost to run all of this is ~5 days on an Nvidia A100 system and has since the development of the pipeline presented here, deemed FoldDock, been applied37.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [37] source
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataFor the ranked test set, the AUC is 0.93, meaning 31% of all models are acceptable at an error rate of 1% and 54% at an error rate of 10%.
“The AUC using the same metric for the ranked test set is 0.93, which means that 31% of all models are acceptable at an error rate of 1% and 54% at an error rate of 10% (Supplementary Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataRunning five initialisations with random seeds and ranking models using pDockQ increases the success rate to 61.7% for AF2+paired and 62.7% for block diagonalization+paired MSAs.
“Further, running five initialisations with random seeds and ranking the models using the predicted DockQ score (pDockQ, Fig. 2c), increases the SR to 61.7% and 62.7% for the AF2 + paired and block diagonalization+paired MSAs, respectively (model variation and ranking, Fig. 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataOn the test set, the best outcome using m1-10-1 gives a success rate of 57.8% for AF2+paired MSAs compared with 45.0% for AF2 MSAs alone.
“The best outcome using this modelling strategy results in an SR of 57.8% (856 out of 1481 correctly modelled complexes) for the AF2 + paired MSAs compared with 45.0% using the AF2 MSAs alone (Fig. 1, Table 2).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown datapDockQ predicts DockQ scores in a continuous manner with an overall average error of 0.11 on the test set.
“This enables the prediction of the DockQ scores (pDockQ) in a continuous manner with an overall average error of 0.11 on the test set.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPairs with larger interfaces are easier to predict, as the success rate increases from 47% to 74% between the smallest and biggest tertiles.
“We divide the dataset by interface size, and find that pairs with larger interfaces are easier to predict, as the SR increases from 47 to 74% between the smallest and biggest tertiles (Fig. 3b).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim- The authors state this as an assumption: All residues in an interface contribute to the interaction energy.
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataOn the combined set of 1481 interacting and 5694 non-interacting proteins, the AUC is 0.82 for average interface plDDT, 0.84 for number of interface contacts, 0.85 for number of interface residues, and 0.87 for pDockQ.
“On this combined set of 1481 interacting and 5694 non-interacting proteins, we obtain an AUC of 0.82 for the average interface plDDT and slightly higher (0.84 and 0.85) for the number of interface contacts and residues, respectively (Fig. 5a). pDockQ results in an ROC curve with an AUC of 0.87.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataPairing took 2 s.
“It took 7884 s for generating the AF2 MSAs, the single-chain searches took 338 s on average and the pairing 2 s.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
FindingreasoningAF2 MSAs generated by supplying a concatenated protein sequence of the entire complex mainly contain gaps for one of the two query proteins in each row, as only single chains can obtain hits in the searched databases.
“The resulting MSAs will thus mainly contain gaps for one of the two query proteins in each row, as only single chains can obtain hits in the searched databases (Fig. 6).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
FindingreasoningTogether there are 5694 non-interacting protein complexes.
“Together there are 5694 non-interacting protein complexes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataFusing the MSAs took 3 s on average per tested complex.
“Fusing the MSAs took 3 s on average per tested complex.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataGenerating the AF2 MSAs took 7884 s.
“It took 7884 s for generating the AF2 MSAs, the single-chain searches took 338 s on average and the pairing 2 s.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe pairing and fusing are negligible compared to searching, resulting in a speedup of 24 times for the hhblits searches.
“The pairing and fusing are thereby negligible compared to searching, resulting in a speedup of 24 times for the hhblits searches.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataFolding using the m1-10-1 strategy took 191 s on average for the tested pairs.
“In comparison, folding using the m1-10-1 strategy took 191 s on average for these pairs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Findingown dataSingle-chain searches took 338 s on average.
“It took 7884 s for generating the AF2 MSAs, the single-chain searches took 338 s on average and the pairing 2 s.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Findingown datapDockQ was created by fitting a sigmoidal curve to the DockQ scores using the average interface plDDT multiplied with the logarithm of the number of interface contacts.
“This score is created by fitting a sigmoidal curve (Fig. 2c) using “curve_fit” from SciPy v.1.4.156, to the DockQ scores using the average interface plDDT multiplied with the logarithm of the number of interface contacts, with the following sigmoidal equation:”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [56] source
May combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationAF-multimer was trained using the same data as the test set, making a direct comparison difficult.
“This method was trained using the same data as the test set, which makes a direct comparison difficult.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [28] source
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataSome test-set structures failed to be modelled, resulting in a total of 1481 structures.
“Some structures failed to be modelled for various reasons (see limitations of data generation), resulting in a total of 1481 structures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataAF2 MSAs could not be generated for three development-set complexes (1gg2, 2nqd, 2xwb) due to memory limitations, so they were disregarded, leaving 216 complexes.
“AF2 MSAs could not be generated for three of the complexes due to memory limitations (1gg2, 2nqd and 2xwb) using a computational node with 128 Gb RAM for the MSA generation and were thus disregarded, resulting in a total of 216 complexes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataUnbound chains in the development set share at least 97% sequence identity with their bound counterparts.
“Unbound chains share at least 97% sequence identity with the bound counterpart and, to facilitate comparisons, non-matching residues are deleted and renumbered to become identical to the unbound counterpart.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
InterpretationreasoningThere may be some unknown selection bias in how the development and test sets were chosen.
“This leads us to believe that there may be some unknown selection bias in how the sets were chosen.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown data50 test-set complexes have overlapping PDB codes with the development set and were excluded.
“107 of the complexes in the test set lack beta carbons (Cβs), and 50 have overlapping PDB codes with the development set and were therefore excluded.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe development set protein pairs share less than 30% sequence identity.
“This set contains protein pairs, with each chain having at least 50 residues, sharing <30% sequence identity and no crystal packing artefacts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe development set protein pairs each have at least 50 residues.
“This set contains protein pairs, with each chain having at least 50 residues, sharing <30% sequence identity and no crystal packing artefacts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataBoth single chains in a complex are often predicted very well while their relative orientation may still be incorrect.
“Interestingly, the average plDDT of the entire complex only results in an AUC of 0.66, suggesting that both single chains in a complex are often predicted very well, while their relative orientation may still be incorrect.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown data107 test-set complexes lack beta carbons.
“107 of the complexes in the test set lack beta carbons (Cβs), and 50 have overlapping PDB codes with the development set and were therefore excluded.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Interpretationown dataThe higher performance in S. cerevisiae compared to H. sapiens suggests a similar relationship between higher and lower order organisms within the same kingdom.
“The higher performance in S. cerevisiae compared to H. sapiens suggests a similar relationship between higher and lower order organisms within the same kingdom.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataWhen folding, three complexes report a ValueError, leading to a final set of 1481 complexes.
“When folding, three of these (5AWF_D-5AWF_B, 2ZXE_B-2ZXE_A and 2ZXE_A-2ZXE_G) report “ValueError: Cannot create a tensor proto whose content is larger than 2GB”, leading to a final set of 1481 complexes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe pDockQ score discriminates between both model quality and binary interactions.
“The pDockQ score discriminates between both model quality and binary interactions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe development set protein pairs have no crystal packing artefacts.
“This set contains protein pairs, with each chain having at least 50 residues, sharing <30% sequence identity and no crystal packing artefacts.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Interpretationnone givenThe study only considers the structures of protein complexes in their heterodimeric state; alternative oligomeric states and larger biological assemblies are outside its scope.
“Here, we only consider the structures of protein complexes in their heterodimeric state, although each protein chain in these complexes may have homodimer configurations or other higher-order states.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataIn MSA generation from AF2, 20 MSAs report MergeMasterSlave errors, resulting in a total of 1484 AF2 MSAs.
“In the MSA generation from AF2, 20 MSAs report MergeMasterSlave errors regarding discrepancies in the number of match states, resulting in a total of 1484 AF2 MSAs.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataMSA co-evolutionary signal and correct identification of orthologous protein sequences have a strong impact on the outcome.
“This suggests that MSA co-evolutionary signal and, thereby, correct identification of orthologous protein sequences, has a strong impact on the outcome.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductown dataThe test set complexes have a resolution between 1 and 5 Å.
“These complexes share <30% sequence identity, have a resolution between 1–5 Å and constitute unique pairs of PFAM domains (no single protein pair have PFAM domains matching that of any other pair).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationreasoningThe same pipeline can identify if two proteins interact and the accuracy of their structure.
“Therefore, the same pipeline can identify if two proteins interact and the accuracy of their structure.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataFor RF, 26 complexes produced out of memory exceptions and were excluded, leaving 1455 complexes.
“For RF, 26 complexes produced out of memory exceptions during prediction using a GPU with 40 Gb RAM and were excluded from the RF analyses, leaving 1455 complexes.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataDSSP could only be run successfully for 1391 out of the 1481 protein complexes, and the rest were ignored in the analysis.
“DSSP could only be run successfully for 1391 out of the 1481 protein complexes, and we ignored the rest in the analysis.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductreasoningFor the mammalian proteins from Negatome, after exclusions, 1715 complexes remained.
“For the mammalian proteins from Negatome, seven out of 1733 single chains were redundant according to Uniprot (C4ZQ83, I0LJR4, I0LL25, K4CRX6, P62988, Q8NI70, Q8T3B2), 34 had no matching species in the MSA pairing, 106 produced out of memory exceptions during prediction using a GPU with 40 Gb RAM, 35 gave a tensor reshape error, and 65 complexes were homodimers, leaving 1715 complexes for this set”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimMay combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoningNo templates were used to build structures, as this would not assess the prediction accuracy of unknown structures or structures without sufficient matching templates.
“No templates were used to build structures, as this would not assess the prediction accuracy of unknown structures or structures without sufficient matching templates.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductown dataSome AlphaFold-multimer complexes failed due to computational limitations, resulting in 1458 out of 1481 complexes successfully folded.
“Some complexes failed due to computational limitations, resulting in 1458 out of 1481 complexes successfully folded.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.
Study design and conductreasoning65 structures in the second non-interacting set are homodimers and were excluded, resulting in 1705 structures.
“Some structures in this dataset are homodimers (65) and are therefore excluded, resulting in 1705 structures.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningRF was compared with AF2 using the same inputs (the paired MSAs) for both the development and test datasets to provide a more fair comparison.
“We compare RF with AF2 using the same inputs (the paired MSAs) for both the development and test datasets to provide a more fair comparison, as AF2 searches many different databases to obtain as much evolutionary information as possible when generating its MSAs.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningFive models initiated with different seeds were generated for each complex to account for non-determinism in AF2 structure prediction.
“Since structure prediction with AF2 is a non-deterministic process, we generate five models initiated with different seeds.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim- Rests on an assumption: AF2 structure prediction is a non-deterministic process.
Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationThe number of clusters obtained by clustering sequences at 62% identity has been used to indicate a Neff value for each MSA.
“To estimate the information in each MSA, we clustered sequences at 62% identity, as described in a previous study50. The number of clusters obtained in this way has been used to indicate a Neff value for each MSA.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites [50] Zhang, Y. & Skolnick, J. Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality. Proteins 57, (2004). source
The authors state this as an assumption.
All residues in an interface contribute to the interaction energy.
“Assuming that all residues in an interface contribute to the interaction energy could explain why larger interfaces are more likely to be correctly predicted.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 31% success rate at 1% FPR observed on the test set applies to the human reference interactome.
“If 31% of these can be predicted at an error rate of 1%, this results in the structure of 19,842 human heterodimeric protein structures.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 3989 E. coli proteins used as negatives are truly non-interacting.
“Using the best separator from the model ranking, the pDockQ, it is possible to distinguish the 3989 non-interacting proteins from Escherichia coli and the 1481 truly interacting proteins from the test set with an AUC of 0.87.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The 1481 test set proteins used as positives are truly interacting.
“Using the best separator from the model ranking, the pDockQ, it is possible to distinguish the 3989 non-interacting proteins from Escherichia coli and the 1481 truly interacting proteins from the test set with an AUC of 0.87.”
The paper relies on this without support.
AF2 structure prediction is a non-deterministic process.
“Since structure prediction with AF2 is a non-deterministic process, we generate five models initiated with different seeds.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Ranking the five AF2 models for each complex by the number of residues in the interface gives the best result.
“We rank the five models for each complex by the number of residues in the interface, giving the best result.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A large fraction of all interacting pairs have high ipTM/ranking confidence scores, whereas this is extremely rare for two randomly chosen proteins.
“A large fraction of all interacting pairs have high ipTM/ranking confidence scores, whereas this is extremely rare for two randomly chosen proteins (3).”
From Reliable Identification of Homodimers Using AlphaFold (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
The Results and discussion section, “Identifying interacting proteins” (page unavailable), reports that pDockQ identifies 51% of known interacting pairs at a 1% false-positive rate in a set of known non-interacting pairs. This supports the broad contrast, but the paper does not report ipTM scores or test two randomly chosen proteins; its negative pairs were selected as non-interacting, as described in Methods, “Non-interacting proteins” (page unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredAlphaFold2.0 could be used to successfully separate interacting and non-interacting heterodimers.
“Bryant et al showed that AlphaFold2.0 could be used to successfully separate interacting and non-interacting heterodimers (3).”
From Reliable Identification of Homodimers Using AlphaFold (2025) · cites this paper as [3]
Modifying the residue_index feature used by AF2 eliminates the need for a covalent linker that likely creates artifacts.
“A much better solution is to modify the “residue_index” feature used by AF2, which eliminates the need for a covalent linker that likely creates artifacts20,21.”
From AF2Complex predicts direct physical interactions in multimeric proteins with deep learning (2022) · cites this paper as [21]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Two different average pDockQ errors for the test set
MajorThe figure caption reports an overall average error of 0.14 DockQ, while the results text reports 0.11 for the same test set.
“The average error overall is 0.14 DockQ score.”
“This enables the prediction of the DockQ scores (pDockQ) in a continuous manner with an overall average error of 0.11 on the test set.”
Model-ranking method conflicts with the reported ranking metric
MinorThe Methods say the five models are ranked by the number of interface residues, whereas the reported 61.7% success rate is attributed to ranking them by pDockQ. These are different metrics for selecting the top model.
“We rank the five models for each complex by the number of residues in the interface, giving the best result.”
“Although this is unachievable, ranking the models using the pDockQ score results in an SR of 61.7%.”
Removing 65 homodimers does not leave 1705 complexes
MinorRemoving the stated 65 homodimers from 1964 complexes leaves 1899, not 1705; the text does not account for the other 194 removals.
Reported 1705 · recomputed 1899
“Some structures in this dataset are homodimers (65) and are therefore excluded, resulting in 1705 structures.”
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
SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., et al. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2 · Cited by 38,430 · see citing works
Kabsch, W., & Sander, C. (1983) · Biopolymers · doi:10.1002/bip.360221211 · Cited by 15,320 · see citing works
SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python
Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T. E., Haberland, M., Reddy, T., Cournapeau, D., Burovski, E., Peterson, P., Weckesser, W., Bright, J., et al. (2019) · Apollo - University of Cambridge Repository · doi:10.17863/cam.64134 · Cited by 10,460 · see citing works
Jalview Version 2—a multiple sequence alignment editor and analysis workbench
Waterhouse, A. M., Procter, J. B., Martin, D. M. A., Clamp, M. E., & Barton, G. J. (2009) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btp033 · Cited by 10,011 · see citing works
Szklarczyk, D., Gable, A. L., Nastou, K. C., Lyon, D., Kirsch, R., Pyysalo, S., Doncheva, N. T., Legeay, M., Fang, T., Bork, P., et al. (2021) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa1074 · Cited by 8,056 · see citing works
Accelerated Profile HMM Searches
Eddy, S. R. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002195 · Cited by 6,975 · see citing works
UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021
The UniProt Consortium, Bateman, A., Martin, M.-J., Orchard, S., Magrane, M., Agivetova, R., Ahmad, S., Alpi, E., Bowler-Barnett, E. H., Britto, R., et al. (2021) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkaa1100 · Cited by 6,372 · see citing works
Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a 3-track network
Baek, M., DiMaio, F., Anishchenko, I., Dauparas, J., Ovchinnikov, S., Lee, G. R., Wang, J., Cong, Q., Kinch, L. N., Schaeffer, R. D., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.06.14.448402 · Cited by 5,542 · see citing works
MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets
Steinegger, M., & Söding, J. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3988 · Cited by 4,840 · 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
A Completely Reimplemented MPI Bioinformatics Toolkit with a New HHpred Server at its Core
Zimmermann, L., Stephens, A., Nam, S.-Z., Rau, D., Kübler, J., Lozajic, M., Gabler, F., Söding, J., Lupas, A. N., & Alva, V. (2018) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2017.12.007 · Cited by 2,522 · see citing works
Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality
Zhang, Y., & Skolnick, J. (2004) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.20264 · Cited by 2,392 · see citing works
Perineuronal nets stabilize the grid cell network
Christensen, A. C., Lensjø, K. K., Lepperød, M. E., Dragly, S.-A., Sutterud, H., Blackstad, J. S., Fyhn, M., & Hafting, T. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-020-20241-w · Cited by 1,865 · see citing works
The MIntAct project—IntAct as a common curation platform for 11 molecular interaction databases
Orchard, S. E., Ammari, M. G., Aranda, B., Breuza, L., Briganti, L., Broackes-Carter, F. C., Campbell, N. H., Chavali, G. B., Chen, C. C. L., del‐Toro, N., et al. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1115 · Cited by 1,835 · 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 protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations
Yang, J., Anishchenko, I., Park, H., Peng, Z., Ovchinnikov, S., & Baker, D. (2020) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1914677117 · Cited by 1,421 · see citing works
Kühlbrandt, W. (2014) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1251652 · Cited by 1,325 · see citing works
Principles of docking: An overview of search algorithms and a guide to scoring functions
Halperin, I., Ma, B., Wolfson, H., & Nussinov, R. (2002) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.10115 · Cited by 1,294 · see citing works
A reference map of the human binary protein interactome
Luck, K., Kim, D.-K., Lambourne, L., Spirohn, K., Begg, B. E., Bian, W., Brignall, R., Cafarelli, T., Campos-Laborie, F. J., Charloteaux, B., et al. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-020-2188-x · Cited by 1,197 · see citing works
HH-suite3 for fast remote homology detection and deep protein annotation
Steinegger, M., Meier, M., Mirdita, M., Vöhringer, H., Haunsberger, S. J., & Söding, J. (2019) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-019-3019-7 · Cited by 1,145 · see citing works
Identification of direct residue contacts in protein–protein interaction by message passing
Weigt, M., White, R. A., Szurmant, H., Hoch, J. A., & Hwa, T. (2009) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.0805923106 · Cited by 1,025 · see citing works
Clustering of highly homologous sequences to reduce the size of large protein databases
Li, W.-Z., Jaroszewski, L., & Godzik, A. (2001) · Bioinform. · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/17.3.282 · Cited by 1,021 · see citing works
Diversity of protein–protein interactions
Nooren, I. M. A., & Thornton, J. (2003) · EMBO Journal · doi:10.1093/emboj/cdg359 · Cited by 942 · see citing works
Clustering huge protein sequence sets in linear time
Steinegger, M., & Söding, J. (2018) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-018-04964-5 · Cited by 875 · see citing works
Protein Sequence Analysis Using the MPI Bioinformatics Toolkit
Gabler, F., Nam, S., Till, S., Mirdita, M., Steinegger, M., Söding, J., Lupas, A. N., & Alva, V. (2020) · Current Protocols in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/cpbi.108 · Cited by 831 · see citing works
Structure-based prediction of protein–protein interactions on a genome-wide scale
Zhang, Q. C., Petrey, D., Deng, L., Qiang, L., Shi, Y., Thu, C. A., Bisikirska, B., Lefebvre, C., Accili, D., Hunter, T., et al. (2012) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature11503 · Cited by 723 · see citing works
Uniclust databases of clustered and deeply annotated protein sequences and alignments
Mirdita, M., von den Driesch, L., Galiez, C., Martin, M. J., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2016) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkw1081 · Cited by 710 · see citing works
Principles of Protein−Protein Interactions: What are the Preferred Ways For Proteins To Interact?
Keskin, O., Gursoy, A., Ma, B., & Nussinov, R. (2008) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/cr040409x · Cited by 697 · see citing works
MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020
Mitchell, A. L., Almeida, A., Beracochea, M., Boland, M., Burgin, J., Cochrane, G., Crusoe, M. R., Kale, V., Potter, S. C., Richardson, L. J., et al. (2019) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkz1035 · Cited by 562 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Single-sequence protein structure prediction using language models from deep learning
Chowdhury, R., Bouatta, N., Biswas, S., Rochereau, C., Church, G. M., Sorger, P. K., & AlQuraishi, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.02.454840 · Cited by 455 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Since then, other end-to-end structure predictors have emerged using different principles such as fast MSA processing in DMPFold2 17 and language model representations 18 .”
MethodSingle-sequence protein structure prediction using a language model and deep learning
Chowdhury, R., Bouatta, N., Biswas, S., Floristean, C., Kharkar, A., Roy, K., Rochereau, C., Ahdritz, G., Zhang, J., Church, G. M., et al. (2022) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-022-01432-w · Cited by 455 · 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 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The BFD was created in the following manner: “by clustering 2.5 billion protein sequences from Uniprot/TrEMBL+Swissprot 35 , Metaclust 36 and Soil Reference Catalog Marine Eukaryotic Reference Catalog assembled by Plass 37 .”
MethodInfluentialVreven, T., Moal, I. H., Vangone, A., Pierce, B. G., Kastritis, P. L., Torchala, M., Chaleil, R., Jiménez-García, B., Bates, P. A., Fernandez-Recio, J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Predicting protein–protein interactions through sequence-based deep learning
Hashemifar, S. S., Neyshabur, B., Khan, A. A., & Xu, J. (2018) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty573 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Towards a structurally resolved human protein interaction network
(2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.11.08.467664 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Self-citationTowards a structurally resolved human protein interaction network
Burke, D. F., Bryant, P., Barrio-Hernandez, I., Memon, D., Pozzati, G., Shenoy, A., Zhu, W., Dunham, A. S., Albanese, P., Keller, A., et al. (2023) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-022-00910-8 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Self-citationProtein interaction networks revealed by proteome coevolution
Cong, Q., Anishchenko, I., Ovchinnikov, S., & Baker, D. (2019) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aaw6718 · Cited by 241 · see citing works
The binary protein-protein interaction landscape of Escherichia coli
Rajagopala, S. V., Sikorski, P., Kumar, A., Mosca, R., Vlasblom, J., Arnold, R., Franca-Koh, J., Pakala, S. B., Phanse, S., Ceol, A., et al. (2014) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.2831 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Docking and scoring protein interactions: CAPRI 2009
Lensink, M. F., & Wodak, S. J. (2010) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22818 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Principles of flexible protein–protein docking
Andrusier, N., Mashiach, E., Nussinov, R., & Wolfson, H. J. (2008) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22170 · Cited by 223 · see citing works
Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network
Baek, M., DiMaio, F., Anishchenko, I. V., Dauparas, J., Ovchinnikov, S., Lee, G. R., Wang, J., Cong, Q., Kinch, L. N., Schaeffer, R. D., et al. (2022) · Yearbook of pediatric endocrinology · doi:10.1530/ey.19.15.15 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
Blohm, P., Frishman, G., Smialowski, P., Goebels, F., Wachinger, B., Ruepp, A., & Frishman, D. (2013) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkt1079 · Cited by 192 · see citing works
Templates are available to model nearly all complexes of structurally characterized proteins
Kundrotas, P. J., Zhu, Z., Janin, J., & Vakser, I. A. (2012) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1200678109 · Cited by 179 · see citing works
Insights into Coupled Folding and Binding Mechanisms from Kinetic Studies
Shammas, S. L., Crabtree, M., Dahal, L., Wicky, B. I. M., & Clarke, J. (2016) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1074/jbc.r115.692715 · Cited by 153 · see citing works
Baldassi, C., Zamparo, M., Feinauer, C., Procaccini, A., Zecchina, R., Weigt, M., & Pagnani, A. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0092721 · Cited by 140 · see citing works
Blind prediction of homo- and hetero-protein complexes: the CASP13-CAPRI experiment
Lensink, M. F., Brysbaert, G., Nadzirin, N., Velankar, S., Chaleil, R. A. G., Gerguri, T., Bates, P. A., Laine, E., Carbone, A., Grudinin, S., et al. (2019) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25838 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
What method to use for protein–protein docking?
Porter, K. A., Desta, I., Kozakov, D., & Vajda, S. (2019) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2018.12.010 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Green, A. G., Elhabashy, H., Brock, K. P., Maddamsetti, R., Kohlbacher, O., & Marks, D. S. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21636-z · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Improved protein structure prediction using predicted inter-residue orientationsPreprint
Yang, J., Anishchenko, I. V., Park, H., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/846279 · Cited by 109 · see citing works
Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: The CASP14‐CAPRI experiment
Lensink, M. F., Brysbaert, G., Mauri, T., Nadzirin, N., Velankar, S. S., Chaleil, R. A. G., Clarence, T., Bates, P. A., Kong, R., Liu, B., et al. (2021) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26222 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
HH-suite3 for fast remote homology detection and deep protein annotationPreprint
Steinegger, M., Meier, M., Mirdita, M., et al. (2019) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/560029 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Procaccini, A., Lunt, B., Szurmant, H., Terence Hwa, B., & Weigt, M. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0019729 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Huang, S., & Zou, X. (2010) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.22797 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Dockground: A comprehensive data resource for modeling of protein complexes
Kundrotas, P. J., Anishchenko, I. V., Dauzhenka, T. A., Kotthoff, I., Mnevets, D., Copeland, M. M., & Vakser, I. A. (2017) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.3295 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
Inter-residue, inter-protein and inter-family coevolution: bridging the scales
Szurmant, H., & Weigt, M. (2018) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2017.10.014 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Abagyan, R. A., Batalov, S., Cardozo, T. J., Totrov, M. M., Webber, J., & Zhou, Y. (1997) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(1997)1+ · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Accurate contact predictions using covariation techniques and machine learning
Kościółek, T., & Jones, D. T. (2015) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.24863 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Kandathil, S. M., Greener, J. G., Lau, A. M., & Jones, D. T. (2022) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2113348119 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Application of docking methodologies to modeled proteins
Singh, A., Dauzhenka, T. A., Kundrotas, P. J., Sternberg, M. J. E., & Vakser, I. A. (2020) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25889 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Kurkcuoglu, Z., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2020) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.25802 · Cited by 37 · see citing works
Contact Potential for Structure Prediction of Proteins and Protein Complexes from Potts Model
Anishchenko, I., Kundrotas, P. J., & Vakser, I. A. (2018) · Biophysical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.bpj.2018.07.035 · Cited by 29 · see citing works
Limits and potential of combined folding and docking
Pozzati, G., Zhu, W., Bassot, C., Lamb, J., Kundrotas, P., & Elofsson, A. (2022) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab760 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationStructural Basis of Protein–Protein Interactions
Liddington, R. (2004) · Humana Press eBooks · doi:10.1385/1-59259-762-9:003 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Protein-Protein Docking Methods
Marshall, G. R., & Vakser, I. A. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/0-387-24532-4_6 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Sequence–function relationships in folding upon binding
Eginton, C., Naganathan, S., & Beckett, D. (2014) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.2605 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Limits and potential of combined folding and docking using PconsDockPreprint
Pozzati, G., Zhu, W., Bassot, C., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.06.04.446442 · Cited by 13 · see citing works
Self-citationKandathil, S. M., Greener, J. G., Lau, A. M., & Jones, D. T. (2020) · doi:10.1101/2020.11.27.401232 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
pyconsFold: a fast and easy tool for modeling and docking using distance predictions
Lamb, J., & Elofsson, A. (2021) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab353 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citationMechanisms of Folding upon Binding
Clarke, J. (2015) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fasebj.29.1_supplement.109.1 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- 1997, Evaluation of GRAMM low-resolution docking methodology on the hemagglutinin-antibody complex, Proteins, Suppl 1, 226
Cited by
Sorted by citations
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 · see citing works
ColabFold - Making protein folding accessible to all
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S., & Steinegger, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.15.456425 · Cited by 9,391 · 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
Harnessing protein folding neural networks for peptide–protein docking
Tsaban, T., Varga, J. K., Avraham, O., Ben-Aharon, Z., Khramushin, A., & Schueler-Furman, O. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27838-9 · Cited by 1,205 · see citing works
A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold2 applications
Akdel, M., Pires, D. E. V., Pardo, E. P., Jänes, J., Zalevsky, A. O., Mészáros, B., Bryant, P., Good, L. L., Laskowski, R. A., Pozzati, G., et al. (2022) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w · Cited by 675 · see citing works
Self-citationAlphaFold2 and its applications in the fields of biology and medicine
Yang, Z., Zeng, X., Zhao, Y. C., & Chen, R. (2023) · Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy · doi:10.1038/s41392-023-01381-z · Cited by 606 · see citing works
Ahdritz, G., Bouatta, N., Floristean, C., Kadyan, S., Xia, Q., Gerecke, W., O’Donnell, T. J., Berenberg, D., Fisk, I., Zanichelli, N., et al. (2024) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02272-z · Cited by 439 · see citing works
“Predicting protein structure from sequence has been a defining challenge of biology for decades 1,2 .”
Artificial intelligence for geoscience: Progress, challenges, and perspectives
Zhao, T., Wang, S., Ouyang, C., Chen, M., Liu, C., Zhang, J., Long, Y., Wang, F., Xie, Y., Li, J., et al. (2024) · The Innovation · doi:10.1016/j.xinn.2024.100691 · Cited by 394 · see citing works
AI-based structure prediction empowers integrative structural analysis of human nuclear pores
Mosalaganti, S., Obarska-Kosinska, A., Siggel, M., Taniguchi, R., Turoňová, B., Zimmerli, C. E., Buczak, K., Schmidt, F. H., Margiotta, E., Mackmull, M.-T., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abm9506 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Benchmarking <scp>AlphaFold</scp> for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants
Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A., & Pierce, B. G. (2022) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.4379 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants
Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A., & Pierce, B. G. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.23.465575 · Cited by 335 · see citing works
Before and after AlphaFold2: An overview of protein structure prediction
Bertoline, L. M. F., Lima, A. N., Krieger, J. E., & Teixeira, S. K. (2023) · Frontiers in Bioinformatics · doi:10.3389/fbinf.2023.1120370 · Cited by 309 · see citing works
Towards a structurally resolved human protein interaction network
Burke, D. F., Bryant, P., Barrio-Hernandez, I., Memon, D., Pozzati, G., Shenoy, A., Zhu, W., Dunham, A. S., Albanese, P., Keller, A., et al. (2023) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-022-00910-8 · Cited by 269 · see citing works
Self-citationProtein structure predictions to atomic accuracy with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., & Hassabis, D. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01362-6 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Mechanisms and pathology of protein misfolding and aggregation
Louros, N. N., Schymkowitz, J. W. H., & Rousseau, F. (2023) · Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41580-023-00647-2 · Cited by 259 · see citing works
Ding, R. F., Chen, J., Chen, Y., Liu, J., Bando, Y., & Wang, X. (2024) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d4cs00844h · Cited by 252 · see citing works
AF2Complex predicts direct physical interactions in multimeric proteins with deep learning
Gao, M., Nakajima An, D., Parks, J. M., & Skolnick, J. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-29394-2 · Cited by 252 · see citing works
Predicting the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search
(2022) · doi:10.1038/s41467-022-33729-4 · Cited by 226 · see citing works
Self-citationMachine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering
Kouba, P., Kohout, P., Haddadi, F., Bushuiev, A., Samusevich, R., Sedlář, J., Damborský, J., Pluskal, T., Šivic, J., & Mazurenko, S. (2023) · ACS Catalysis · doi:10.1021/acscatal.3c02743 · Cited by 214 · see citing works
How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual screening?
Scardino, V., Di Filippo, J. I., & Cavasotto, C. N. (2023) · iScience · doi:10.1016/j.isci.2022.105920 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Evaluation of AlphaFold-Multimer prediction on multi-chain protein complexes
Zhu, W., Shenoy, A., Kundrotas, P., & Elofsson, A. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad424 · Cited by 202 · see citing works
Self-citationAlphaFold2 structures guide prospective ligand discovery
Lyu, J., Kapolka, N. J., Gumpper, R. H., Alon, A., Wang, L., Jain, M. K., Barros-Álvarez, X., Sakamoto, K., Kim, Y., DiBerto, J. F., et al. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adn6354 · Cited by 182 · see citing works
Easy and accurate protein structure prediction using ColabFold
Kim, G., Lee, S., Karin, E. L., Kim, H., Moriwaki, Y., Ovchinnikov, S., Steinegger, M., & Mirdita, M. (2024) · Nature Protocols · doi:10.1038/s41596-024-01060-5 · Cited by 167 · see citing works
AFsample: improving multimer prediction with AlphaFold using massive sampling
Wallner, B. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad573 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
AlphaPulldown—a python package for protein–protein interaction screens using AlphaFold-Multimer
Yu, D., Chojnowski, G., Rosenthal, M., & Kosinski, J. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btac749 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
Improving peptide-protein docking with AlphaFold-Multimer using forced sampling
Johansson-Åkhe, I., & Wallner, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Bioinformatics · doi:10.3389/fbinf.2022.959160 · Cited by 162 · see citing works
AlphaFold predictions of fold-switched conformations are driven by structure memorization
Chakravarty, D., Schafer, J. W., Chen, E. A., Thole, J. F., Ronish, L. A., Lee, M., & Porter, L. L. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51801-z · Cited by 159 · see citing works
The power and pitfalls of AlphaFold2 for structure prediction beyond rigid globular proteins
Agarwal, V., & McShan, A. C. (2024) · Nature Chemical Biology · doi:10.1038/s41589-024-01638-w · Cited by 155 · see citing works
“A separate study by Bryant et al. 56 reported a 63% success rate for heterodimeric complexes.”
ResultMultiscale photocatalytic proximity labeling reveals cell surface neighbors on and between cells
Lin, Z., Schaefer, K., Lui, I., Yao, Z. W., Fossati, A., Swaney, D. L., Palar, A., Šali, A., & Wells, J. A. (2024) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adl5763 · Cited by 155 · see citing works
The impact of AlphaFold2 one year on
Jones, D. T., & Thornton, J. M. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-021-01365-3 · Cited by 152 · see citing works
Single-sequence protein structure prediction using supervised transformer protein language models
Wang, W., Peng, Z., & Yang, J. (2022) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-022-00373-3 · Cited by 150 · see citing works
Protein complexes in cells by AI‐assisted structural proteomics
(2023) · doi:10.15252/msb.202311544 · Cited by 147 · see citing works
What's next for AlphaFold and the AI protein-folding revolution
Callaway, E. (2022) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00997-5 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Yin, R., & Pierce, B. G. (2024) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.4865 · Cited by 145 · see citing works
An atlas of protein homo-oligomerization across domains of life
Schweke, H., Pacesa, M., Levin, T., Goverde, C. A., Kumar, P., Duhoo, Y., Dornfeld, L. J., Dubreuil, B., Georgeon, S., Ovchinnikov, S., et al. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.01.022 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold 2 applications
Akdel, M., Pires, D. E. V., Porta Pardo, E., Jänes, J., Zalevsky, A. O., Mészáros, B., Bryant, P., Good, L. L., Laskowski, R. A., Pozzati, G., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.26.461876 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Self-citationAlphaFold2 protein structure prediction: Implications for drug discovery
Borkakoti, N., & Thornton, J. M. (2023) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2022.102526 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Myostatin and its Regulation: A Comprehensive Review of Myostatin Inhibiting Strategies
Baig, M. H., Ahmad, K., Moon, J. S., Park, S.-Y., Ho Lim, J., Chun, H. J., Qadri, A. F., Hwang, Y. C., Jan, A. T., Ahmad, S. S., et al. (2022) · Frontiers in Physiology · doi:10.3389/fphys.2022.876078 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
In situ architecture of the ER–mitochondria encounter structure
Wozny, M. R., Di Luca, A., Morado, D. R., Picco, A., Khaddaj, R., Campomanes, P., Ivanović, L., Hoffmann, P. C., Miller, E. A., Vanni, S., et al. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-023-06050-3 · Cited by 134 · see citing works
A foundation model of transcription across human cell types
(2025) · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08391-z · Cited by 130 · see citing works
AI-Based Protein Structure Prediction in Drug Discovery: Impacts and Challenges
Schauperl, M., & Denny, R. A. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00026 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Predictomes, a classifier-curated database of AlphaFold-modeled protein-protein interactions
Schmid, E. W., & Walter, J. C. (2025) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2025.01.034 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
Tesson, F., Planel, R., Egorov, A. A., Georjon, H., Vaysset, H., Brancotte, B., Néron, B., Mordret, E., Atkinson, G. C., Bernheim, A., et al. (2024) · Peer Community Journal · doi:10.24072/pcjournal.470 · Cited by 120 · see citing works
In silico protein interaction screening uncovers DONSON’s role in replication initiation
Lim, Y., Tamayo-Orrego, L., Schmid, E., Tarnauskaite, Z., Kochenova, O. V., Gruar, R., Muramatsu, S., Lynch, L., Schlie, A. V., Carroll, P. L., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adi3448 · Cited by 112 · see citing works
“of human CMG (PDB: 7PLO) (64) by aligning”
BackgroundMethodComputational Approaches to Predict Protein–Protein Interactions in Crowded Cellular Environments
Grassmann, G., Miotto, M., Desantis, F., Rienzo, L. D., Tartaglia, G. G., Pastore, A., Ruocco, G., Monti, M. M., & Milanetti, E. (2024) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.3c00550 · Cited by 106 · see citing works
Structure prediction of alternative protein conformations
Bryant, P., & Noé, F. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51507-2 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
Self-citationSystematic discovery of protein interaction interfaces using AlphaFold and experimental validation
Lee, C. Y., Hubrich, D., Varga, J. K., Schäfer, C., Welzel, M., Schumbera, E., Djokic, M., Strom, J. M., Schönfeld, J., Geist, J. L., et al. (2024) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/s44320-023-00005-6 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
“Sensitivities of around 70% were reported using benchmark datasets of structurally resolved protein interactions originally developed to evaluate docking methods (Akdel et al, 2022; Bryant et al, 2022; Johansson-Åkhe et al, 2021; preprint:Evans et al, 2021).”
InfluentialSystematic discovery of protein interaction interfaces using AlphaFold and experimental validation
Lee, C. Y., Hubrich, D., Varga, J. K., Schäfer, C., Welzel, M., Schumbera, E., Đokić, M., Strom, J. M., Schönfeld, J., Geist, J. L., et al. (2023) · doi:10.1101/2023.08.07.552219 · Cited by 105 · see citing works
From interaction networks to interfaces, scanning intrinsically disordered regions using AlphaFold2
Bret, H., Gao, J., Zea, D. J., Andreani, J., & Guerois, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44288-7 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Omidi, A., Møller, M. H., Malhis, N., Bui, J. M., & Gsponer, J. A. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2406407121 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
AlphaFold prediction of structural ensembles of disordered proteins
Brotzakis, Z. F., Zhang, S., Murtada, M. H., & Vendruscolo, M. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56572-9 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Rēs ipSAE loquuntur : What’s wrong with AlphaFold’s ipTM score and how to fix itPreprint
Dunbrack, R. L. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.02.10.637595 · Cited by 98 · see citing works
AlphaFold 2 and NMR Spectroscopy: Partners to Understand Protein Structure, Dynamics and Function
Laurents, D. V. (2022) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2022.906437 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Inhibitors of bacterial immune systems: discovery, mechanisms and applications
Mayo-Muñoz, D., Pinilla‐Redondo, R., Camara-Wilpert, S., Birkholz, N., & Fineran, P. C. (2024) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/s41576-023-00676-9 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Recent Advances in Deep Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Analysis: A Comprehensive Review
Lee, M. (2023) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules28135169 · Cited by 93 · see citing works
Progress at protein structure prediction, as seen in CASP15
Elofsson, A. (2023) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102594 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citationMachine learning on protein–protein interaction prediction: models, challenges and trends
Tang, T., Zhang, X., Liu, Y., Peng, H., Zheng, B., Yin, Y., & Zeng, X. (2023) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbad076 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
A virally encoded tRNA neutralizes the PARIS antiviral defence system
Burman, N., Belukhina, S., Depardieu, F., Wilkinson, R. A., Skutel, M. A., Santiago‐Frangos, A., Graham, A. B., Livenskyi, A., Chechenina, A., Morozova, N. E., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07874-3 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Stepwise emergence of the neuronal gene expression program in early animal evolution
Najle, S. R., Grau‐Bové, X., Elek, A., Navarrete, C., Cianferoni, D., Chiva, C., Cañas-Armenteros, D., Mallabiabarrena, A., Kamm, K., Sabidó, E., et al. (2023) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2023.08.027 · Cited by 86 · see citing works
The control of carpel determinacy pathway leads to sex determination in cucurbits
Zhang, S., Tan, F., Chung, C.-H., Slavković, F., Devani, R. S., Troadec, C., Marcel, F., Morin, H., Camps, C., Roldán, M. V. G., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.add4250 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Non-specificity as the sticky problem in therapeutic antibody development
Ausserwöger, H., Schneider, M. M., Herling, T. W., Arosio, P., Invernizzi, G., Knowles, T. P. J., & Lorenzen, N. (2022) · Nature Reviews Chemistry · doi:10.1038/s41570-022-00438-x · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Machine learning solutions for predicting protein–protein interactions
Casadio, R., Martelli, P. L., & Savojardo, C. (2022) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1618 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Recent advances in predicting and modeling protein–protein interactions
Durham, J., Zhang, J., Humphreys, I. R., Pei, J., & Cong, Q. (2023) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2023.03.003 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
The Troyer syndrome protein spartin mediates selective autophagy of lipid droplets
Chung, J., Park, J., Lai, Z. W., Lambert, T. J., Richards, R. C., Zhang, J., Walther, T. C., & Farese, R. V. (2023) · Nature Cell Biology · doi:10.1038/s41556-023-01178-w · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Revolutionizing CRISPR technology with artificial intelligence
Kim, M., Go, M.-J., Kang, S.-H., Jeong, S.-H., & Lim, K. (2025) · Experimental & Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1038/s12276-025-01462-9 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Impact of AlphaFold on structure prediction of protein complexes: The CASP15‐CAPRI experiment
Lensink, M. F., Brysbaert, G., RAOURAOUA, N., Bates, P. A., Giulini, M., Honorato, R. V., van Noort, C. W., Teixeira, J. M. C., Bonvin, A. M. J. J., Kong, R., et al. (2023) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26609 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Enhanced Protein-Protein Interaction Discovery via AlphaFold-MultimerPreprint
Kim, A., Hu, Y., Comjean, A., Rodiger, J., Mohr, S. E., & Perrimon, N. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.02.19.580970 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Diffusion models in protein structure and docking
Yim, J., Stärk, H., Corso, G., Jing, B., Barzilay, R., & Jaakkola, T. (2024) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1711 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
A long look at short prokaryotic Argonautes
Koopal, B., Mutte, S. K., & Swarts, D. C. (2022) · Trends in Cell Biology · doi:10.1016/j.tcb.2022.10.005 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Accurate modeling of peptide-MHC structures with AlphaFold
Mikhaylov, V., Brambley, C. A., Keller, G. L. J., Arbuiso, A. G., Weiss, L. I., Baker, B. M., & Levine, A. J. (2024) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2023.11.011 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
Deep learning for protein structure prediction and design—progress and applications
Jänes, J., & Beltrão, P. (2024) · Molecular Systems Biology · doi:10.1038/s44320-024-00016-x · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Critical Assessment of Methods for Predicting the 3D Structure of Proteins and Protein Complexes
Wodak, S. J., Vajda, S., Lensink, M. F., Kozakov, D., & Bates, P. A. (2023) · Annual Review of Biophysics · doi:10.1146/annurev-biophys-102622-084607 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Hasanzadeh, A., Hamblin, M. R., Kiani, J., Noori, H., Hardie, J. M., Karimi, M., & Shafiee, H. (2022) · Nano Today · doi:10.1016/j.nantod.2022.101665 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Blueprint for antibody biologics developability
Mieczkowski, C., Zhang, X., Lee, D., Nguyen, K., Lv, W., Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Way, J., & Gries, J. (2023) · mAbs · doi:10.1080/19420862.2023.2185924 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Using AlphaFold Predictions in Viral Research
Gutnik, D., Evseev, P. V., Анатольевич, М. К., & Shneider, M. M. (2023) · Current Issues in Molecular Biology · doi:10.3390/cimb45040240 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Fragment-based drug discovery supports drugging ‘undruggable’ protein–protein interactions
Wang, Z.-Z., Shi, X.-X., Huang, G.-Y., Hao, G., & Yang, G. (2023) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2023.01.008 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Zheng, W. H., Wuyun, Q., Freddolino, L., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26585 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Computational drug development for membrane protein targets
Li, H., Sun, X., Cui, W., Xu, M., Dong, J., Ekundayo, B., Ni, D., Rao, Z., Guo, L., Stahlberg, H., et al. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01987-2 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Open-Source Machine Learning in Computational Chemistry
Hagg, A., & Kirschner, K. N. (2023) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00643 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Beuming, T., Martín, H., Díaz-Rovira, A. M., Díaz, L., Guallar, V., & Ray, S. S. (2022) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.2c00796 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Predicting protein conformational motions using energetic frustration analysis and AlphaFold2
Guan, X., Tang, Q.-Y., Ren, W., Chen, M., Wang, W., Wolynes, P. G., & Li, W. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2410662121 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Large language models in plant biology
Lam, H. Y. I., Ong, X. E., & Mutwil, M. (2024) · Trends in Plant Science · doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2024.04.013 · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Studying protein–protein interactions: Latest and most popular approaches
Akbarzadeh, S., Coşkun, Ö., & Günçer, B. (2024) · Journal of Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jsb.2024.108118 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Protein Structure Prediction: Challenges, Advances, and the Shift of Research Paradigms
Huang, B., Kong, L., Wang, C., Ju, F., Zhang, Q., Zhu, J., Gong, T., Zhang, H., Yu, C., Zheng, W., et al. (2023) · Genomics Proteomics & Bioinformatics · doi:10.1016/j.gpb.2022.11.014 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
A chemoenzymatic strategy for site-selective functionalization of native peptides and proteins
Fryszkowska, A., An, C., Alvizo, O., Banerjee, G., Canada, K. A., Cao, Y., DeMong, D. E., Devine, P. N., Duan, D., Elgart, D., et al. (2022) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.abn2009 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Shang, T., Zhu, N., Wu, X., & Duan, H. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae215 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Improved multimer prediction using massive sampling with <scp>AlphaFold</scp> in <scp>CASP15</scp>
Wallner, B. (2023) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26562 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Revolutionizing protein–protein interaction prediction with deep learning
Zhang, J., Durham, J., & Cong, Q. (2024) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102775 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Improved protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-multimer by denoising the MSA profile
Bryant, P., & Noé, F. (2024) · PLOS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012253 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationOverview of AlphaFold2 and breakthroughs in overcoming its limitations
Wang, L., Wen, Z., Liu, S.-W., Zhang, L., Finley, C., Lee, H., & Fan, H. (2024) · Computers in Biology and Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.compbiomed.2024.108620 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Improved Multimer Prediction using Massive Sampling with AlphaFold in CASP15
Wallner, B. (2023) · doi:10.22541/au.168170986.60158084/v1 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Protein subcellular localization prediction tools
Gillani, M., & Pollastri, G. (2024) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2024.04.032 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
A conserved oligomerization domain in the disordered linker of coronavirus nucleocapsid proteins
Zhao, H., Wu, D., Hassan, S. A., Nguyen, A., Chen, J., Piszczek, G., & Schuck, P. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adg6473 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Ozden, B., Kryshtafovych, A., & Karaca, E. (2023) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26598 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
HADDOCK3: A Modular and Versatile Platform for Integrative Modeling of Biomolecular Complexes
Giulini, M., Reys, V., Teixeira, J. M. C., Jiménez-García, B., V. Honorato, R., Kravchenko, A., Xu, X., Versini, R., Engel, A., Verhoeven, S., et al. (2025) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.5c00969 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
STK19 positions TFIIH for cell-free transcription-coupled DNA repair
Mevissen, T. E. T., Kümmecke, M., Schmid, E. W., Farnung, L., & Walter, J. C. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.10.020 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Deep learning for protein complex structure prediction
Bryant, P. (2023) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102529 · Cited by 49 · see citing works
Self-citationOu, L., Hao, Y., Liu, H., Zhu, Z., Li, Q., Chen, Q., Wei, R., Feng, Z., Zhang, G., & Yao, M. (2024) · Frontiers in Microbiology · doi:10.3389/fmicb.2024.1416794 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., & Elofsson, A.
- Affiliations
- Stockholm University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Bryant, P.
- Elofsson, A.
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2021-09-15
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1265-1265
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8913741
- OpenAlex
- W4220824576
- Cited by
- 1,025
- References
- 66
- Citations by year
- 2026: 137 · 2025: 270 · 2024: 296 · 2023: 225 · 2022: 88 · 2021: 9
- FWCI
- 61.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Swedish e-Science Research Centre
- Knut och Alice Wallenbergs Stiftelse (COVID 19)
- Vetenskapsrådet (2016-06301, Berzelius-2021-29)
- Stockholms Universitet
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction, protein complex structure prediction, AlphaFold2, multiple sequence alignment, protein docking, protein-protein interaction prediction
- MeSH terms
- Protein Conformation, Proteins, 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.
Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.
Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.
Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.
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