Cited by 568Protein Structure and DynamicsReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 66 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 30 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Sampling alternative conformational states of transporters and receptors with AlphaFold2

Open access
del Alamo, Diego, Sala, Davide, Mchaourab, Hassane S, Meiler, Jens·2022·eLife

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Equilibrium fluctuations and triggered conformational changes often underlie the functional cycles of membrane proteins. For example, transporters mediate the passage of molecules across cell membranes by alternating between inward- and outward-facing states, while receptors undergo intracellular structural rearrangements that initiate signaling cascades. Although the conformational plasticity of these proteins has historically posed a challenge for traditional de novo protein structure prediction pipelines, the recent success of AlphaFold2 (AF2) in CASP14 culminated in the modeling of a transporter in multiple conformations to high accuracy. Given that AF2 was designed to predict static structures of proteins, it remains unclear if this result represents an underexplored capability to accurately predict multiple conformations and/or structural heterogeneity. Here, we present an approach to drive AF2 to sample alternative conformations of topologically diverse transporters and G-protein-coupled receptors that are absent from the AF2 training set. Whereas models of most proteins generated using the default AF2 pipeline are conformationally homogeneous and nearly identical to one another, reducing the depth of the input multiple sequence alignments by stochastic subsampling led to the generation of accurate models in multiple conformations. In our benchmark, these conformations spanned the range between two experimental structures of interest, with models at the extremes of these conformational distributions observed to be among the most accurate (average template modeling score of 0.94). These results suggest a straightforward approach to identifying native-like alternative states, while also highlighting the need for the next generation of deep learning algorithms to be designed to predict ensembles of biophysically relevant states.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Reducing the depth of input MSAs by stochastic subsampling drives AlphaFold2 to sample alternative, native-like conformations of transporters and GPCRs whose structures were absent from its training set. The approach recovers experimentally observed inward/outward or inactive/active states, but it is a methodological “hack” with limited success for proteins already represented in the AF2 training set.

Key findings

  • For all eight benchmark targets—five transporters (LAT1, ZnT8, MCT1, STP10, ASCT2) and three GPCRs (CGRPR, PTH1R, FZD7)—accurate models of at least one conformation were obtained (TM score ≥0.9), and both conformations could be predicted with shallow MSAs.
  • Models at the extremes of the first principal component (PC1) were among the most accurate: average TM score was 0.94 for the top 1, top 3, and top 10 PC1 models; PC1 captured 64.9% ± 16.1% of structural variation among models generated with MSAs of 32 or more sequences.
  • Predicted structural fluctuations correlated with experimental conformational changes for ASCT2, LAT1, CGRPR, and MCT1 with templates (R² ≥ 0.75); Pearson correlation between PC1 and TM score exceeded 0.8 for all transporters.
  • MCT1 was an exception: over 99% of template-free models had TM ≥0.9 to the inward-facing structure and <0.9 to the outward-facing structure regardless of MSA depth; accurate outward-facing models required templates and MSAs of 16–32 sequences.
  • For four proteins with at least one conformation in the AF2 training set (CCR5, SERT, PfMATE, MurJ), conformational diversity was far more limited, and none adopted the alternative conformer.

Methods

  • AF2 v2.0.1 with modified ColabFold was used; MSAs were generated with MMseqs2, template search was disabled except for explicit template-based tests, recycles were set to one, and final MD refinement was skipped.
  • For template-free predictions, all five neural networks were used, with 10 predictions per network per MSA size, yielding 50 models per protein per MSA depth; MSA depth was controlled via `max_msa_clusters` and `max_extra_msa`.
  • Benchmark set: eight membrane proteins absent from the PDB before April 30, 2018 and determined in two or more conformations, plus four proteins with at least one conformation in the AF2 training set; structural similarity was assessed by TM-align, and PCA/RMSF were calculated in CPPTRAJ with loop residues omitted from PCA.

Limitations

  • Stated: the approach is a methodological “hack,” not an explicit AF2 objective; AF2 likely does not learn energy landscapes, does not account for the lipid environment, and showed limited success for proteins whose structures were in the training set.
  • Stated: optimal MSA depth and template choice varied by protein, with no one-size-fits-all solution; the GPR114/ADGRG5 predictions require experimental validation.
  • Evident from the text: the benchmark is small (eight targets plus four training-set proteins), validation depends on already-known experimental structures, and the authors skipped the final MD simulation to reduce computational cost.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.75751

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Figures

Figure 1. Alternative conformations of transporters and G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can be predicted by AlphaFold2 (AF2). (A) Representative models of the transporter LAT1 in inward-facing (IF) and outward-facing (OF) conformations. Experimental structures shown in gray and models shown in colors. (B) Comparison of AF2 models with inactive/active or IF/OF experimental structures as a function of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth for GPCRs (top) and transporters (bottom), respectively. All models shown here were generated without templates. Dashed lines indicate the template modeling (TM) score between experimental structures and are shown for reference. (C) Supplementing shallow MSAs with OF templates allows AF2 to predict the OF conformation of MCT1. (D) Experimental structures superimposed over models with the greatest TM scores. Inactive/IF and active/OF cartoons shown on the top and bottom in teal and orange, respectively.
Figure 1. Alternative conformations of transporters and G-protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs) can be predicted by AlphaFold2 (AF2). (A) Representative models of the transporter LAT1 in inward-facing (IF) and outward-facing (OF) conformations. Experimental structures shown in gray and models shown in colors. (B) Comparison of AF2 models with inactive/active or IF/OF experimental structures as a function of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth for GPCRs (top) and transporters (bottom), respectively. All models shown here were generated without templates. Dashed lines indicate the template modeling (TM) score between experimental structures and are shown for reference. (C) Supplementing shallow MSAs with OF templates allows AF2 to predict the OF conformation of MCT1. (D) Experimental structures superimposed over models with the greatest TM scores. Inactive/IF and active/OF cartoons shown on the top and bottom in teal and orange, respectively.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Example principal component analysis (PCA) of ASCT2 models generated by AlphaFold2 (AF2) containing outlier models. Colors correspond to multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth in sequences, while orange and teal diamonds refer to the outward- and inward-facing experimental structures, respectively. Left: outlier models are indicated by gray arrows and could be clearly delineated along PC2. Right: removal of these models reveal collective variables along PC2.
Figure 1—figure supplement 1. Example principal component analysis (PCA) of ASCT2 models generated by AlphaFold2 (AF2) containing outlier models. Colors correspond to multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth in sequences, while orange and teal diamonds refer to the outward- and inward-facing experimental structures, respectively. Left: outlier models are indicated by gray arrows and could be clearly delineated along PC2. Right: removal of these models reveal collective variables along PC2.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Conformational homogeneity as a function of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth. Conformational homogeneity was defined by classifying models as more similar to one of the two experimental structures based on their template modeling (TM) scores and calculating the fraction of models in the larger group. MCT1 and proteins in the training set (CCR5, MurJ, PfMATE, and SERT) were biased toward one specific conformation (uniformity = 1) even when using shallow MSAs. X-Axis shown on log-2 scale for clarity. Models generated using MSAs with 16 sequences were omitted from this figure.
Figure 1—figure supplement 2. Conformational homogeneity as a function of multiple sequence alignment (MSA) depth. Conformational homogeneity was defined by classifying models as more similar to one of the two experimental structures based on their template modeling (TM) scores and calculating the fraction of models in the larger group. MCT1 and proteins in the training set (CCR5, MurJ, PfMATE, and SERT) were biased toward one specific conformation (uniformity = 1) even when using shallow MSAs. X-Axis shown on log-2 scale for clarity. Models generated using MSAs with 16 sequences were omitted from this figure.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1—figure supplement 3. Templates contribute to conformational sampling only when shallow multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) are provided. (A) PTH1R. (B) LAT1.
Figure 1—figure supplement 3. Templates contribute to conformational sampling only when shallow multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) are provided. (A) PTH1R. (B) LAT1.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 1—figure supplement 4. Protein targets with one conformation in the training set cannot be predicted in the alternative conformation. The following experimental structures served as references for the training and the alternative conformations, respectively: 5UIWr and 7F1Qr (CCR5), 5T77a and 6NC9a (MurJ), 3VVNa and 6FHZa (PfMATE), and 5I6Xa and 6DZZa (SERT).
Figure 1—figure supplement 4. Protein targets with one conformation in the training set cannot be predicted in the alternative conformation. The following experimental structures served as references for the training and the alternative conformations, respectively: 5UIWr and 7F1Qr (CCR5), 5T77a and 6NC9a (MurJ), 3VVNa and 6FHZa (PfMATE), and 5I6Xa and 6DZZa (SERT).CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Comparison between the movement undergone by each Cα atom between the two superimposed experimental structures and their root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) values among AlphaFold2 (AF2) models. Residues with low confidence (pLDDT ≤75) were omitted from this plot for all proteins except PTH1R. Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) sizes of 128 sequences were used for all predictions, except for MCT1 with templates, which instead used 32 sequences to capture the outward-facing (OF) conformation. pLDDT refers to each residue’s predicted accuracy, with a value of 100 indicating maximum confidence.
Figure 2. Comparison between the movement undergone by each Cα atom between the two superimposed experimental structures and their root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) values among AlphaFold2 (AF2) models. Residues with low confidence (pLDDT ≤75) were omitted from this plot for all proteins except PTH1R. Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) sizes of 128 sequences were used for all predictions, except for MCT1 with templates, which instead used 32 sequences to capture the outward-facing (OF) conformation. pLDDT refers to each residue’s predicted accuracy, with a value of 100 indicating maximum confidence.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Comparison between the movement undergone by each Cα atom between the two superimposed experimental structures of PTH1R and LAT1 and their root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) values among AlphaFold2 (AF2) models generated with templates.
Figure 2—figure supplement 1. Comparison between the movement undergone by each Cα atom between the two superimposed experimental structures of PTH1R and LAT1 and their root mean square fluctuation (RMSF) values among AlphaFold2 (AF2) models generated with templates.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Distinct conformations can be delineated using principal component analysis (PCA). (A) Conformational heterogeneity in AlphaFold2 (AF2) models of LAT1. Experimental inward-facing (IF) and outward-facing (OF) conformations shown in teal and orange, respectively, while the gallery of AF2 models generated using 128 sequences are shown in gray. (B) Distribution of AF2 models generated using multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) with 32 or more sequences across the first principal component (PC1) following PCA (gray traces). Scatter plots comparing each model’s position along PC1 and its structural similarity to experimentally determined structures. Teal: similarity to IF (transporters) or inactive (G-protein-coupled receptors, GPCRs) conformation. Orange: similarity to OF (transporters) or active (GPCRs) conformation. Each model is shown twice, once in teal and once in orange. Native structures are shown as black dots.
Figure 3. Distinct conformations can be delineated using principal component analysis (PCA). (A) Conformational heterogeneity in AlphaFold2 (AF2) models of LAT1. Experimental inward-facing (IF) and outward-facing (OF) conformations shown in teal and orange, respectively, while the gallery of AF2 models generated using 128 sequences are shown in gray. (B) Distribution of AF2 models generated using multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) with 32 or more sequences across the first principal component (PC1) following PCA (gray traces). Scatter plots comparing each model’s position along PC1 and its structural similarity to experimentally determined structures. Teal: similarity to IF (transporters) or inactive (G-protein-coupled receptors, GPCRs) conformation. Orange: similarity to OF (transporters) or active (GPCRs) conformation. Each model is shown twice, once in teal and once in orange. Native structures are shown as black dots.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Models sampled by AlphaFold2 (AF2) in multiple conformations cannot be fully explained by linear interpolation of two end structures. Principal component analysis (PCA) of AF2 models, with colors corresponding to the depth of the multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) used for prediction. Experimental structures in an inward-facing or inactive state are shown as teal diamonds, while structures in an outward-facing or active state are shown as orange diamonds.
Figure 3—figure supplement 1. Models sampled by AlphaFold2 (AF2) in multiple conformations cannot be fully explained by linear interpolation of two end structures. Principal component analysis (PCA) of AF2 models, with colors corresponding to the depth of the multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) used for prediction. Experimental structures in an inward-facing or inactive state are shown as teal diamonds, while structures in an outward-facing or active state are shown as orange diamonds.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Example predictions of the adhesion G-protein-coupled receptor (aGPCR) GPR114/ADGRG5. Top: kernel density estimate of the first principal component (PC1) following principal component analysis (PCA on all AlphaFold2 (AF2)) models. Bottom: comparison of PC1 and template modeling (TM) score values; alignments were measured from the AF2 database model, which is indicated by the green dot. Right: models extracted from the cluster centers appear to adopt three distinct conformations.
Figure 3—figure supplement 2. Example predictions of the adhesion G-protein-coupled receptor (aGPCR) GPR114/ADGRG5. Top: kernel density estimate of the first principal component (PC1) following principal component analysis (PCA on all AlphaFold2 (AF2)) models. Bottom: comparison of PC1 and template modeling (TM) score values; alignments were measured from the AF2 database model, which is indicated by the green dot. Right: models extracted from the cluster centers appear to adopt three distinct conformations.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

30 Own result · 15 Not checked yet · 14 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 4 No basis given

Verify all 30 references — free account

Show all 42 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 16
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 9
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
25 of 25
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AlphaFold2 was designed to predict static structures of proteins.

    “Given that AF2 was designed to predict static structures of proteins, it remains unclear if this result represents an underexplored capability to accurately predict multiple conformations and/or structural heterogeneity.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The experimental structures used as references are accurate representations of the native conformations.

    “we used the active conformation of FZD7 and the inactive conformation of the nearly identical FZD4”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The two experimental structures of each target bracket the relevant conformational ensemble.

    “In our benchmark, these conformations spanned the range between two experimental structures of interest”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    AF2 does not directly account for the lipid environment.

    “AF2 does not directly account for the lipid environment”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The structure of GPR114/ADGRG5 has not been experimentally determined.

    “GPR114/ADGRG5, a class B2 adhesion GPCR whose structure has not been experimentally determined.”
5 of 5

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Show all 66 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Del Alamo D. 2021b. Prediction of alternative conformations using AlphaFold 2. Software Heritage. swh:1:rev:d60db86886186e80622deaa91045caccaf4103d3. https://archive.softwareheritage.org/swh:1:dir:732ab369a1b141030fbc5728d9ab3f50e222b3ea;origin=https://github.com/delalamo/af2_conformations;visit=swh:1:snp:cb0ae8b45df2c5f548867364bbfe52debb482bda;anchor=swh:1:rev:d60db86886186e80622deaa91045caccaf4103d3.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–500 of 568

Metadata

Authors
del Alamo, D., Sala, D., Mchaourab, H. S., & Meiler, J.
Affiliations
  • Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University
  • Leipzig University (DE)
  • Vanderbilt University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Mchaourab, Hassane S
  • Meiler, Jens
Venue
eLife
Published
2022-03-03
Volume
11
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4214847177
Cited by
511
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 115 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 138 · 2023: 93 · 2022: 42
FWCI
32.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Florence Research (University of Florence) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (GM 128087)
  • Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (CRC 1423, project number 421152132, subproject Z04)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
AlphaFold2, conformational sampling, membrane transporters, G protein-coupled receptors, structural heterogeneity, protein conformational plasticity, protein structure prediction, conformational ensembles
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Furylfuramide, Protein Conformation, Sequence Alignment, Membrane Transport Proteins

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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