Improving peptide-protein docking with AlphaFold-Multimer using forced sampling
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Protein interactions are key in vital biological processes. In many cases, particularly in regulation, this interaction is between a protein and a shorter peptide fragment. Such peptides are often part of larger disordered regions in other proteins. The flexible nature of peptides enables the rapid yet specific regulation of important functions in cells, such as their life cycle. Consequently, knowledge of the molecular details of peptide-protein interactions is crucial for understanding and altering their function, and many specialized computational methods have been developed to study them. The recent release of AlphaFold and AlphaFold-Multimer has led to a leap in accuracy for the computational modeling of proteins. In this study, the ability of AlphaFold to predict which peptides and proteins interact, as well as its accuracy in modeling the resulting interaction complexes, are benchmarked against established methods. We find that AlphaFold-Multimer predicts the structure of peptide-protein complexes with acceptable or better quality (DockQ ≥0.23) for 66 of the 112 complexes investigated—25 of which were high quality (DockQ ≥0.8). This is a massive improvement on previous methods with 23 or 47 acceptable models and only four or eight high quality models, when using energy-based docking or interaction templates, respectively. In addition, AlphaFold-Multimer can be used to predict whether a peptide and a protein will interact. At 1% false positives, AlphaFold-Multimer found 26% of the possible interactions with a precision of 85%, the best among the methods benchmarked. However, the most interesting result is the possibility of improving AlphaFold by randomly perturbing the neural network weights to force the network to sample more of the conformational space. This increases the number of acceptable models from 66 to 75 and improves the median DockQ from 0.47 to 0.55 (17%) for first ranked models. The best possible DockQ improves from 0.58 to 0.72 (24%), indicating that selecting the best possible model is still a challenge. This scheme of generating more structures with AlphaFold should be generally useful for many applications involving multiple states, flexible regions, and disorder.
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
Dropout as a bayesian approximation: Representing model uncertainty in deep learning
Gal, Y., & Ghahramani, Z. (2015) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1506.02142 · Cited by 6,471 · see citing works
Saito, T., & Rehmsmeier, M. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0118432 · Cited by 5,309 · see citing works
Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808 · see citing works
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., Bridgland, A., Cowie, A., Meyer, C., Laydon, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · Cited by 3,025 · cited 2× · see citing works
“AlphaFold seems able to model the receptor protein regardless of the presence of any other binding chains or cofactors (Jumper et al., 2021; Tunyasuvunakool et al., 2021).”
BackgroundHarnessing protein folding neural networks for peptide–protein docking
Tsaban, T., Varga, J. K., Avraham, O., Ben-Aharon, Z., Khramushin, A., & Schueler-Furman, O. (2022) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-27838-9 · Cited by 1,205 · see citing works
Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2
Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., & Elofsson, A. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.15.460468 · Cited by 1,025 · see citing works
Can AlphaFold2 predict protein-peptide complex structures accurately?
Ko, J., & Lee, J. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.07.27.453972 · Cited by 83 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
AFsample: improving multimer prediction with AlphaFold using massive sampling
Wallner, B. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad573 · Cited by 164 · see citing works
Self-citationFrom interaction networks to interfaces, scanning intrinsically disordered regions using AlphaFold2
Bret, H., Gao, J., Zea, D. J., Andreani, J., & Guerois, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44288-7 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
Chang, L., Mondal, A., Singh, B., Martínez‐Noa, Y., & Perez, A. (2024) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1693 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Improved Multimer Prediction using Massive Sampling with AlphaFold in CASP15
Wallner, B. (2023) · doi:10.22541/au.168170986.60158084/v1 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Self-citationRepresenting structures of the multiple conformational states of proteins
Ramelot, T. A., Tejero, R., & Montelione, G. T. (2023) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102703 · Cited by 26 · 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
- Authors
- Johansson-Åkhe, I., & Wallner, B.
- Affiliations
- Linköping University (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Wallner, Björn
- Venue
- Frontiers in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2022-09-26
- Volume
- 2
- Pages
- 959160-959160
- ISSN
- 2673-7647 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9580857
- OpenAlex
- W4297235560
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 22 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 55 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 9
- FWCI
- 11.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Diva portal (Dalarna University Library) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Vetenskapsrådet
- Carl Tryggers Stiftelse för Vetenskaplig Forskning
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein-peptide docking, AlphaFold-Multimer, conformational sampling, intrinsically disordered regions
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