The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Estimating Protein Complex Model Accuracy Using Graph Transformers and Pairwise Similarity Graphs
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1093/bioadv/vbaf180 · Paper page
Abstract
Motivation: Estimation of protein complex structure accuracy is an essential step in protein complex structure prediction and is also important for users to select good structural models for various applications, such as protein function analysis and drug design. Despite the success of structure prediction methods such as AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3, predicting the quality of predicted complex structures (structural models) and selecting top ones from large model pools remains challenging. Results: We present GATE, a novel method that uses graph transformers on pairwise model similarity graphs to predict the quality (accuracy) of complex structural models. By integrating single-model and multi-model quality features, GATE captures both the characteristics of individual models and the geometric similarity between them to make robust predictions. On the dataset of the 15th Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP15), GATE achieved the highest Pearson’s correlation (0.748) and the lowest ranking loss (0.1191) compared to existing methods. In the blind CASP16 experiment, GATE was ranked 4th according to the overall sum of z-scores of multiple metrics based on both TM-score and Oligo-GDTTS scores. In terms of per-target average metrics based on TM-score, GATE achieved a Pearson’s correlation of 0.7076 (1st place among all methods), a Spearman’s correlation of 0.4514 (3rd place), a ranking loss of 0.1221 (3rd place), and an Area Under the Curve (AUC) score of 0.6680 (3rd place), highlighting its strong, balanced ability of estimating complex model accuracy and selecting good models. Availability: The source code of GATE is freely available at https://github.com/BioinfoMachineLearning/GATE .
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 23
- Richard Evans , Michael O’Neill , Alexander Pritzel , Natasha Antropova , Andrew Senior , Tim Green , Augustin Žídek , Russ Bates , Sam Blackwell , Jason Yim , et al. Protein complex prediction with alphafold-multimer. biorxiv, pages 2021–10, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
- Josh Abramson , Jonas Adler , Jack Dunger , Richard Evans , Tim Green , Alexander Pritzel , Olaf Ronneberger , Lindsay Willmore , Andrew J Ballard , Joshua Bambrick , et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with alphafold 3. Nature, pages 1–3, 2024.
- 10.1038/s42003-023-05525-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s42004-023-00991-6 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad030 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1110/ps.0236803 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.22275 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn014 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw694 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa455 · DOI
- 10.1186/s12859-022-04683-1 · DOI
- 10.1002/pro.4932 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.26542 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.25767 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv235 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/prot.24172 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad203 · DOI
- 10.1002/prot.26554 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41592-022-01585-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/prot.26612 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · DOI · Paper page
Metadata
- Authors
- Liu, J., Neupane, P., & Cheng, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Missouri (US)
- Corresponding author
- Cheng, Jianlin
- Venue
- Bioinformatics Advances
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2025-02-08
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- vbaf180-vbaf180
- ISSN
- 2635-0041 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12342149
- OpenAlex
- W4412712728
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics Advances (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (2308699)
- National Institutes of Health
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM093123, R01GM146340)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein complex structure, model selection, graph transformer, CASP15, CASP16, AlphaFold, TM-score, ranking loss
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review