PreprintCited by 16Computational Drug Discovery MethodsReceptor Mechanisms and SignalingProtein Structure and Dynamics

How accurately can one predict drug binding modes using AlphaFold models?

Open access
Karelina, Masha, Noh, Joseph J., Dror, Ron O.·2023·eLife

Preprint — published as 10.7554/elife.89386.2

Abstract

Abstract Computational prediction of protein structure has been pursued intensely for decades, motivated largely by the goal of using structural models for drug discovery. Recently developed machine learning methods such as AlphaFold 2 (AF2) have dramatically improved protein structure prediction, with reported accuracy approaching that of experimentally determined structures. To what extent do these advances translate to an ability to predict more accurately how drugs and drug candidates bind to their target proteins? Here we carefully examine the utility of AF2 protein structure models for predicting binding poses of drug-like molecules at the largest class of drug targets, the G protein–coupled receptors. We find that AF2 models capture binding pocket structures much more accurately than traditional homology models, with errors nearly as small as differences between structures of the same protein determined experimentally with different ligands bound. Strikingly, however, the accuracy of ligand binding poses predicted by computational docking to AF2 models is not significantly higher than when docking to traditional homology models and is much lower than when docking to structures determined experimentally without these ligands bound. These results have important implications for all those who might use predicted protein structures for drug discovery.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.7554/elife.89386.1

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Karelina, M., Noh, J. J., & Dror, R. O.
Affiliations
Stanford Medicine (US)
Venue
eLife
Published
2023-08-08
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4385659092
Cited by
16
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
eLife (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (Graduate Research Fellowship Program)
  • Novo Nordisk
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Receptor Mechanisms and Signaling
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
AlphaFold2, protein structure prediction, drug binding prediction, G protein-coupled receptors, ligand binding poses, molecular docking, homology model, drug discovery

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