Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) – Round XV
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1002/prot.26617 · Paper page
Abstract
Computing protein structure from amino acid sequence information has been a long-standing grand challenge. CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction) conducts community experiments aimed at advancing solutions to this and related problems. Experiments are conducted every two years. The 2020 experiment (CASP14) saw major progress, with the second generation of deep learning methods delivering accuracy comparable with experiment for many single proteins. There is an expectation that these methods will have much wider application in computational structural biology. Here we summarize results from the most recent experiment, CASP15, in 2022, with an emphasis on new deep learning-driven progress. Other papers in this special issue of Proteins provide more detailed analysis. For single protein structures, the AlphaFold2 deep learning method is still superior to other approaches, but there are two points of note. First, although AlphaFold2 was the core of all the most successful methods, there was a wide variety of implementation and combination with other methods. Second, using the standard AlphaFold2 protocol and default parameters only produces the highest quality result for about two thirds of the targets, and more extensive sampling is required for the others. The major advance in this CASP is the enormous increase in the accuracy of computed protein complexes, achieved by the use of deep learning methods, although overall these do not fully match the performance for single proteins. Here too, AlphaFold2 based method perform best, and again more extensive sampling than the defaults is often required. Also of note are the encouraging early results on the use of deep learning to compute ensembles of macromolecular structures. Critically for the usability of computed structures, for both single proteins and protein complexes, deep learning derived estimates of both local and global accuracy are of high quality, however the estimates in interface regions are slightly less reliable. CASP15 also included computation of RNA structures for the first time. Here, the classical approaches produced better agreement with experiment than the new deep learning ones, and accuracy is limited. Also, for the first time, CASP included the computation of protein-ligand complexes, an area of special interest for drug design. Here too, classical methods were still superior to deep learning ones. Many new approaches were discussed at the CASP conference, and it is clear methods will continue to advance.
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
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.
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
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.07.479398 · Cited by 2,598 · 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
Synthetic data could be better than real data
Savage, N. (2023) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-023-01445-8 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Breaking the conformational ensemble barrier: Ensemble structure modeling challenges in CASP15
Kryshtafovych, A., Montelione, G., Rigden, D., Mesdaghi, S., Karaca, E., & Moult, J. (2023) · doi:10.22541/au.169199504.48580490/v1 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Kryshtafovych, A., Schwede, T., Topf, M., Fidelis, K., & Moult, J.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Davis (US)
- SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research (US)
- Corresponding author
- Moult, John
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-10-06
- OpenAlex
- W4387402496
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2025: 4 · 2023: 1
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- DESY Publication Database (PUBDB) (Deutsches Elektronen-Synchrotron) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health
- University of California, Davis
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM100482)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein structure prediction, CASP15, AlphaFold2, deep learning, protein complexes, protein-ligand complex, RNA structure prediction, structural ensembles, accuracy estimation, protein interfaces, drug design
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