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.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

0 of 30 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

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.

  • FZD7 does not meet the stated two-conformation selection criterion

    Minor

    The paper says the benchmark is restricted to proteins experimentally determined in two or more conformations. For FZD7, it instead uses an active FZD7 structure and an inactive structure of the related protein FZD4.

1 of 1

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 66 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

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

See all 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