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

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating Deep Learning Based Structure Prediction Methods on Antibody-Antigen Complexes

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1093/bioinformatics/btag136 · Paper page

Abstract

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

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2025.07.11.662141

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 2 references

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. 10.1186/s12929-019-0592-z · DOI
  2. 10.1038/s41467-022-28865-w · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2025, PLoS Comput Biol, 21, e1013168, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013168 · DOI
  4. 10.1002/pro.4865 · DOI · Paper page
  5. B. Wallner , Bioinformatics 39(9) (2023). · DOI · Paper page
  6. 2024, Nat Comput Sci, 4, 824, 10.1038/s43588-024-00714-4 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 2025, Commun Biol, 8, 373, 10.1038/s42003-025-07791-9 · DOI
  8. R. Evans , et al., bioRxiv p. 2021.10.04.463034 (2022).
  9. 10.1002/pro.5127 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/nar/gkab1050 · DOI
  11. 2022, Nature Methods, 19, 679, 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1093/nar/gkp318 · DOI
  13. U. Zhang , J. Sjolnick , Proteins pp. 702–710 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
  14. C. Mirabello , B. Wallner , Bioinformatics 40(10) (2024). · DOI
  15. 10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · DOI · Paper page
  16. R. L. Dunbrack , bioRxiv p. 2025.02.10.637595 (2025).
  17. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad424 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · DOI · Paper page
  19. 10.1038/s41592-022-01585-1 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab760 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/s41586-024-08416-7 · DOI
  22. J. Wohlwend , et al., bioRxiv p. 2024.11.19.624167 (2025).
  23. C. Discovery , et al., bioRxiv p. 2024.10.10.615955 (2024).
  24. J. K. Varga , S. Ovchinnikov , O. Schueler-Furman , arXiv p. 2412.15970 (2024).

Metadata

Authors
Fromm, S., Ludaic, M., & Elofsson, A.
Affiliations
Stockholm University (SE)
Corresponding author
Elofsson, Arne
Venue
Bioinformatics
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2025-07-11
Volume
42
Issue
4
ISSN
1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7139989941
Cited by
19
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 3
FWCI
32.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • vetenskapsrådet (2021-03979)
  • Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation (2022.0032)
  • NAISS (SNIC 2021/5-297., Berzelius-2021-29)
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
immune complexes, protein structure prediction, AlphaFold2, AlphaFold3, benchmarking, sampling strategy, host-pathogen interaction, model ranking
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Prediction Algorithms, Antigen-Antibody Complex, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Computational Biology

About these checks

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

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

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

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

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