Improving AlphaFold Predicted Contacts for Alpha-Helical Transmembrane Proteins Using Structural Features
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Residue contact maps provide a condensed two-dimensional representation of three-dimensional protein structures, serving as a foundational framework in structural modeling but also as an effective tool in their own right in identifying inter-helical binding sites and drawing insights about protein function. Treating contact maps primarily as an intermediate step for 3D structure prediction, contact prediction methods have limited themselves exclusively to sequential features. Now that AlphaFold2 predicts 3D structures with good accuracy in general, we examine (1) how well predicted 3D structures can be directly used for deciding residue contacts, and (2) whether features from 3D structures can be leveraged to further improve residue contact prediction. With a well-known benchmark dataset, we tested predicting inter-helical residue contact based on AlphaFold2’s predicted structures, which gave an 83% average precision, already outperforming a sequential features-based state-of-the-art model. We then developed a procedure to extract features from atomic structure in the neighborhood of a residue pair, hypothesizing that these features will be useful in determining if the residue pair is in contact, provided the structure is decently accurate, such as predicted by AlphaFold2. Training on features generated from experimentally determined structures, we leveraged knowledge from known structures to significantly improve residue contact prediction, when testing using the same set of features but derived using AlphaFold2 structures. Our results demonstrate a remarkable improvement over AlphaFold2, achieving over 91.9% average precision for a held-out subset and over 89.5% average precision in cross-validation experiments.
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
Impact of protein conformational diversity on AlphaFold predictions
Saldaño, T., Escobedo, N., Marchetti, J., Zea, D. J., Mac Donagh, J., Velez Rueda, A. J., Gonik, E., Melani, A. G., Novomisky Nechcoff, J., Salas, M. N., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.27.466189 · Cited by 196 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Several studies have examined AlphaFold2’s predicted structures, for example to assess the impact of conformational diversity on its predictions [29] or to evaluate if AlphaFold2 learned the physics of folding [30].”
BackgroundCurrent structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding
Outeiral, C., Nissley, D. A., & Deane, C. M. (2022) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btab881 · Cited by 82 · see citing works
McCafferty, C. L., Pennington, E. L., Papoulas, O., Taylor, D. W., & Marcotte, E. M. (2023) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-04773-7 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Sawhney, A., Li, J., & Liao, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Delaware (US)
- University of Shanghai for Science and Technology (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Liao, Li
- Venue
- International Journal of Molecular Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2024-05-11
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 5247
- ISSN
- 1422-0067 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11121315
- OpenAlex
- W4396892857
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Molecular Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation (NSF-MCB1820103)
- Delaware Bioscience Center for Advanced Technology (NSF-MCB1820103)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- AlphaFold2, alpha-helical transmembrane proteins, contact maps, structural features, protein structure prediction
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