The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Well Can AI and Physics-Based Simulations Predict the Probability a Cryptic Pocket Is Open?
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1021/acs.jctc.6c00135
Abstract
Identifying and understanding cryptic pockets remains a compelling goal in drug discovery, as they can offer new avenues for targeting proteins that are otherwise challenging to modulate. While artificial intelligence (AI) methods for structure prediction have been revolutionary, they have not learned enough physics to characterize the rest of a protein’s conformational ensemble, such as structures with cryptic pockets. This limitation has motivated the development of new AI-based methods for characterizing ensembles, or properties thereof, such as AlphaFlow, BioEmu, PocketMiner, and CryptoBank. Here, we benchmark how well these models and physics-based molecular dynamics (MD) simulations can recapitulate the thermodynamics of known cryptic pockets in Ebola VP35 and TEM β-lactamase. These two pockets were chosen because the probability that they are open and the impact of point mutations have been well characterized experimentally. Multiple methods are remarkably successful at predicting whether a mutation will increase or decrease the probability of cryptic pocket opening. However, none can reliably predict the absolute probability of pocket opening. MD is very close for the two wild-type proteins but all the methods struggle for pockets with small probabilities of opening experimentally (e.g. less than 1%). BioEmu and PocketMiner capture some trends between variants with experimental populations over 1% but have systematic errors and poorer performance for rare pockets (e.g. <1% open experimentally). These results highlight the promise of AI- and simulation-based strategies for cryptic pocket characterization while pointing to the need for further improvements to achieve robust predictors.
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
Scalable emulation of protein equilibrium ensembles with generative deep learning
Lewis, S., Hempel, T., Jiménez Luna, J., Gastegger, M., Xie, Y., Foong, A. Y. K., García Satorras, V., Abdin, O., Veeling, B. S., Zaporozhets, I., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.12.05.626885 · Cited by 349 · cited 1×
“While prior studies have offered some comparative insights in WT proteins 49 , detailed, side-by-side evaluations across multiple mutations have been lacking.”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 61
- 10.1073/pnas.1111325108 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2003.09.013 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature12796 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.cbpa.2018.05.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cbpa.2009.05.125 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2004.10.009 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drudis.2017.10.001 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cell.2013.03.034 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0178678 · DOI
- 10.1038/s42004-025-01714-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.drudis.2024.104197 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009817 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-023-36699-3 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jpclett.3c00087 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.accounts.9b00613 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102975 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioadv/vbaf156 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103215 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41586-025-08618-7 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.5b00737 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41557-021-00707-0 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.ccr.2013.02.018 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jcim.1c00660 · DOI
- 10.1021/jacs.6b05425 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c01318 · DOI
- 10.1021/jacs.7b12191 · DOI
- 10.1126/sciadv.adr0797 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-022-29927-9 · DOI
- 10.7554/eLife.104514 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1101/2024.11.19.624167 · DOI
- 10.1101/2024.10.10.615955 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2025.103000 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01189 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.3c00290 · DOI
- Berman, H. M. ; Westbrook, J. ; Feng, Z. ; Gilliland, G. ; Bhat, T. N. ; Weissig, H. ; Shindyalov, I. N. ; Bourne, P. E . The Protein Data Bank; 2000; Vol. 28. http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/status.html.
- 10.1126/science.adv9817 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.jmb.2016.01.029 · DOI
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btae745 · DOI
- 10.1109/BIBM58861.2023.10385497 · DOI
- 10.1101/2025.04.23.650184 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0807854106 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2023989118 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1209309109 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1073/pnas.1417811112 · DOI
- 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00465 · DOI
- 10.1101/2025.11.17.688865 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.jctc.8b00500 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.2215371120 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1063/1.445869 · DOI
- 10.1002/jcc.10349 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.softx.2015.06.001 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1002/(SICI)1096-987X(199709)18:12<1463::AID-JCC4>3.3.CO;2-L · DOI
- 10.1063/1.464397 · DOI
- 10.1063/1.2408420 · DOI
- 10.1016/S1093-3263(98)00002-3 · DOI
- 10.1016/0022-2836(73)90011-9 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bpj.2015.08.015 · DOI
- 10.1063/1.5063794 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.290.5498.1903 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.bpj.2023.03.028 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Zhang, S., Miller, J. J., & Bowman, G. R.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Corresponding author
- Bowman, Gregory R.
- Venue
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2026-01-23
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- 3839-3850
- ISSN
- 1549-9618 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12871771
- OpenAlex
- W7151319323
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7
- FWCI
- 14.47
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health NIGMS (R35GM152085)
- NSF MCB (2218156)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
- Keywords
- protein conformational ensembles, molecular dynamics simulation, TEM beta-lactamase, point mutations, protein thermodynamics
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