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 accessPreprint — 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.
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
Sampling alternative conformational states of transporters and receptors with AlphaFold2
del Alamo, D., Sala, D., Mchaourab, H. S., & Meiler, J. (2022) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.75751 · Cited by 511
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- 10.1186/s12929-019-0592-z · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-022-28865-w · DOI · Paper page
- 2025, PLoS Comput Biol, 21, e1013168, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013168 · DOI
- 10.1002/pro.4865 · DOI · Paper page
- B. Wallner , Bioinformatics 39(9) (2023). · DOI · Paper page
- 2024, Nat Comput Sci, 4, 824, 10.1038/s43588-024-00714-4 · DOI · Paper page
- 2025, Commun Biol, 8, 373, 10.1038/s42003-025-07791-9 · DOI
- R. Evans , et al., bioRxiv p. 2021.10.04.463034 (2022).
- 10.1002/pro.5127 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkab1050 · DOI
- 2022, Nature Methods, 19, 679, 10.1038/s41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/nar/gkp318 · DOI
- U. Zhang , J. Sjolnick , Proteins pp. 702–710 (2004). · DOI · Paper page
- C. Mirabello , B. Wallner , Bioinformatics 40(10) (2024). · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0161879 · DOI · Paper page
- R. L. Dunbrack , bioRxiv p. 2025.02.10.637595 (2025).
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad424 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41592-022-01585-1 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab760 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1038/s41586-024-08416-7 · DOI
- J. Wohlwend , et al., bioRxiv p. 2024.11.19.624167 (2025).
- C. Discovery , et al., bioRxiv p. 2024.10.10.615955 (2024).
- 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
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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