PreprintCited by 40Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Structure and FunctionComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Reliable protein-protein docking with AlphaFold, Rosetta, and replica-exchange

Open access
Harmalkar, Ameya, Lyskov, Sergey, Gray, Jeffrey J.·2023·eLife

Preprint — published as 10.7554/elife.94029.3

Abstract

Despite the recent breakthrough of AlphaFold (AF) in the field of protein sequence-to-structure prediction, modeling protein interfaces and predicting protein complex structures remains challenging, especially when there is a significant conformational change in one or both binding partners. Prior studies have demonstrated that AF-multimer (AFm) can predict accurate protein complexes in only up to 43% of cases. 1 In this work, we combine AlphaFold as a structural template generator with a physics-based replica exchange docking algorithm to better sample conformational changes. Using a curated collection of 254 available protein targets with both unbound and bound structures, we first demonstrate that AlphaFold confidence measures (pLDDT) can be repurposed for estimating protein flexibility and docking accuracy for multimers. We incorporate these metrics within our ReplicaDock 2.0 protocol 2 to complete a robust in-silico pipeline for accurate protein complex structure prediction. AlphaRED (AlphaFold-initiated Replica Exchange Docking) successfully docks failed AF predictions including 97 failure cases in Docking Benchmark Set 5.5. AlphaRED generates CAPRI acceptable-quality or better predictions for 63% of benchmark targets. Further, on a subset of antigen-antibody targets, which is challenging for AFm (20% success rate), AlphaRED demonstrates a success rate of 43%. This new strategy demonstrates the success possible by integrating deep-learning based architectures trained on evolutionary information with physics-based enhanced sampling. The pipeline is available at github.com/Graylab/AlphaRED .

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2023.07.28.551063

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Harmalkar, A., Lyskov, S., & Gray, J. J.
Affiliations
Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Gray, Jeffrey J.
Venue
eLife
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-07-29
Volume
13
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4410771926
Cited by
40
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 1
FWCI
8.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM078221, R35GM141881)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
protein-protein docking, AlphaFold, protein complex structure prediction, protein interfaces, conformational change, protein flexibility, immune complexes, Rosetta

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review