Benchmarking Multimer Prediction Tools: A Comprehensive Guide to Accuracy, Applications, and Future Directions

Abstract

Accurately predicting the structure of multimeric protein complexes is a cornerstone of modern biology, with profound implications for understanding disease mechanisms and accelerating drug discovery. While AI-driven tools like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 have revolutionized the field, assessing their accuracy and limitations remains a critical challenge for researchers and drug development professionals. This article provides a systematic evaluation of state-of-the-art multimer prediction tools, exploring their foundational principles, methodological applications, and common pitfalls. We synthesize findings from recent benchmarks, including CASP15 and specialized studies on antibody-antigen complexes, to deliver a comparative analysis of predictive performance. Finally, we outline future directions for enhancing accuracy and reliability in biomedical research.

The Multimer Prediction Landscape: From Core Challenges to Key Concepts

Why Multimer Prediction is Inherently More Difficult Than Monomer Prediction

In structural biology, predicting the three-dimensional structure of proteins from their amino acid sequence is a fundamental challenge. While the prediction of single-chain monomer structures has seen revolutionary advances, accurately modeling multimer structures—complexes of two or more interacting protein chains—remains a formidable frontier. The ability to predict these complexes is crucial, as most proteins perform their essential functions not in isolation but by interacting to form multimeric assemblies that drive cellular processes such as signal transduction, immune responses, and metabolism [1] [2]. Understanding the inherent difficulties in multimer prediction is therefore vital for researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals seeking to leverage computational tools for understanding disease mechanisms and developing therapeutic interventions.

Although deep learning methods like AlphaFold2 have made remarkable breakthroughs in monomer prediction, accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the structures of protein complexes continues to present significant challenges [1]. This article examines the fundamental reasons behind this performance gap, compares the capabilities of state-of-the-art prediction tools, and details the experimental protocols driving progress in the field.

Fundamental Differences Between Monomer and Multimer Prediction

Data Availability and Problem Complexity

The prediction of protein multimers is fundamentally more complex than monomer prediction due to several interconnected factors, beginning with data availability and the intrinsic complexity of the problem itself.

• Limited Experimental Data: As of December 2024, the UniProt database contained 254 million amino acid sequences, while the Protein Data Bank (PDB) had released just over 220,000 protein structures, with approximately 115,000 being structures of protein multimers or complexes [2]. This disparity creates a significant data bottleneck for training and validating multimer-specific prediction tools.

• Expanded Prediction Scope: Monomer prediction focuses primarily on the single-chain folding process. In contrast, multimer prediction must accurately model not only the folding of individual monomers but also their assembly state, interaction interfaces, spatial symmetry, and the dynamic behavior of subunits [2]. Success requires optimizing the relative positions of multiple chains to facilitate binding through specific interfaces, forming a stable complex [2].

• Conformational Flexibility: The formation of a multimer is frequently accompanied by substantial conformational changes and adaptive adjustments [2]. This inherent flexibility, critical for biological function, presents a major challenge for computational prediction, as it requires modeling dynamic interactions between monomers.

Key Physical and Technical Distinctions

The table below summarizes the core distinctions that make multimer prediction a uniquely challenging computational problem.

Table 1: Core Technical Differences Between Monomer and Multimer Prediction

Aspect	Monomer Prediction	Multimer Prediction
Primary Focus	Folding of a single polypeptide chain into its 3D structure.	Assembly of multiple folded chains into a stable complex.
Interactions Modeled	Intra-chain covalent bonds and non-covalent interactions.	Both intra-chain and inter-chain non-covalent interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds, hydrophobic contacts) [2].
Evolutionary Signals	Relies on co-evolutionary signals within a single sequence MSA.	Requires paired MSAs to capture inter-chain co-evolution, which is often weak or absent [1].
Conformational Sampling	Sampling the conformational space of one chain.	Sampling the combinatorial space of multiple chains' relative orientations.
Quality Assessment	Evaluation of global fold accuracy (e.g., pLDDT).	Must assess both global topology and local interface accuracy [3].

Performance Comparison of State-of-the-Art Multimer Prediction Tools

Quantitative Benchmarking on Standardized Datasets

The performance gap between monomer and multimer prediction is clearly demonstrated by benchmarking state-of-the-art tools on standardized datasets like CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction). The following table summarizes key quantitative comparisons.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Advanced Multimer Prediction Tools

Tool	Core Methodology	Reported Performance	Key Limitations
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Extension of AlphaFold2 tailored for multimers; uses paired MSAs for inter-chain co-evolution.	Baseline performance on CASP15 multimer targets.	Accuracy remains considerably lower than AlphaFold2 for monomers [1].
AlphaFold3 [1]	End-to-end diffusion model for predicting biomolecular complexes.	Outperformed by DeepSCFold on CASP15 targets (10.3% lower TM-score) and antibody-antigen interfaces (12.4% lower success rate) [1].	Struggles with complexes lacking clear co-evolutionary signals [1].
DeepSCFold [1]	Predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) and interaction probability (pIA-score) from sequence to build enhanced paired MSAs.	Achieves 11.6% and 10.3% higher TM-score than AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 on CASP15, respectively. Improves antibody-antigen interface prediction by 24.7% and 12.4% over the same [1].	Relies on AlphaFold-Multimer for final structure generation; performance depends on initial monomer MSA quality.
AF/EvoDOCK Symmetric Assembly [4]	Combines AlphaFold2/Multimer with all-atom symmetric docking (EvoDOCK) to build large symmetrical complexes.	Successfully assembled 27 cubic systems with a median TM-score of 0.99; 21 systems had high-quality TM-scores >0.9 [4].	Limited to complexes with symmetry; requires accurate AF/AFM subcomponent prediction as a starting point [4].

The Critical Role of Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) Processing

A central challenge in multimer prediction is the construction of effective paired Multiple Sequence Alignments (pMSAs). While monomer prediction uses MSAs to capture co-evolution within a single chain, multimer prediction requires pMSAs to identify co-evolving residues across different chains, which provides crucial signals for inter-chain interactions [1].

Standard sequence search tools (e.g., HHblits, Jackhammer) are designed for monomeric MSAs and cannot directly construct pMSAs [1]. This limitation is particularly acute for complexes like antibody-antigen or virus-host systems, which often lack clear inter-chain co-evolution due to the absence of species overlap [1]. Methods like DeepSCFold attempt to overcome this by using deep learning to predict structural complementarity and interaction probability directly from sequence, thereby generating pMSAs based on structural awareness rather than sequence co-evolution alone [1].

Experimental Protocols for Multimer Prediction

The DeepSCFold Protocol for Enhanced Complex Modeling

The DeepSCFold protocol exemplifies a modern, advanced workflow designed to overcome the limitations of existing multimer prediction tools. Its methodology is detailed below.

Diagram 1: DeepSCFold Workflow. This workflow integrates deep learning-based structural and interaction predictions to enhance paired MSA construction.

The protocol involves several critical steps:

• Input and Initial MSA Generation: The process begins with the input protein complex sequences. DeepSCFold first generates monomeric Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) for each subunit from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, BFD, MGnify, etc.) [1].
• Deep Learning-Based Feature Prediction: Two key deep learning models are employed. The first predicts a pSS-score, which quantifies the structural similarity between the input sequence and its homologs in the monomeric MSAs. The second predicts a pIA-score, which estimates the interaction probability for pairs of sequence homologs from distinct subunit MSAs [1].
• MSA Processing and Paired MSA Construction: The predicted pSS-score is used as a complementary metric to traditional sequence similarity to rank and filter the monomeric MSAs. Subsequently, the pIA-scores are used to systematically concatenate monomeric homologs from different chains, constructing biologically relevant paired MSAs [1].
• Structure Prediction and Model Selection: The series of constructed paired MSAs are used by AlphaFold-Multimer to generate an ensemble of complex structure models. The top model is selected using an in-house quality assessment method (DeepUMQA-X) and is then used as an input template for a final iteration of AlphaFold-Multimer to produce the output structure [1].

The Symmetric Docking Protocol for Large Assemblies

For large complexes with symmetry, a hybrid approach that combines deep learning and physics-based docking has proven effective. The following diagram illustrates the workflow for predicting the structure of complexes with cubic symmetry.

Diagram 2: Symmetric Assembly Workflow. This protocol combines deep learning-predicted subunits with symmetric docking for large complexes.

This protocol involves three distinct application scenarios:

• Global Assembly: This is a true ab initio prediction from sequence. AF/AFM predicts subcomponent structures (e.g., dimers, trimers), which are then assembled by EvoDOCK without prior structural information, requiring a global search of rigid body parameters [4].
• Local Assembly: This approach uses a starting model (e.g., from Cryo-EM at low resolution) to provide the initial rigid body orientation, but uses AF/AFM-predicted subunit structures. EvoDOCK then refines the model [4].
• Local Recapitulation: Starting from the native assembly model and a bound subunit, this method optimizes rigid-body and side-chain degrees of freedom to characterize the energy landscape and improve model energetics [4].

The symmetric EvoDOCK algorithm uses a memetic algorithm that combines differential evolution with Monte Carlo local search. It optimizes a population of individuals, each defined by a backbone from the ensemble and six rigid-body parameters describing the symmetric assembly. Optimization is guided by the all-atom Rosetta energy function to achieve an energetically favorable final model [4].

Successful multimer prediction relies on a suite of computational tools and databases. The following table catalogs key resources that constitute the essential toolkit for researchers in this field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multimer Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Multimer Research
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Software Tool	End-to-end deep learning model for predicting protein complex structures from sequence.
AlphaFold3 [1] [5]	Software Tool	Expands prediction to include protein-ligand and protein-nucleic acid complexes using a diffusion model.
DeepSCFold [1]	Software Pipeline	Enhances paired MSA construction using sequence-derived structural complementarity and interaction probability.
EvoDOCK [4]	Software Tool	All-atom symmetrical docking algorithm for assembling large complexes from predicted subunits.
UniProt [2]	Database	Comprehensive repository of protein sequences and functional information for MSA construction.
Protein Data Bank (PDB) [2]	Database	Archive of experimentally determined 3D structures of proteins, nucleic acids, and complexes; essential for training and validation.
UniRef30/90 [1]	Database	Clustered sets of protein sequences from UniProt; used for efficient, non-redundant MSA generation.
DeepUMQA-X [1]	Software Tool	Complex model quality assessment method for selecting the most accurate predicted structure.

Multimer prediction remains inherently more challenging than monomer prediction due to a confluence of factors: scarce experimental data, the combinatorial complexity of modeling multiple chains, the dynamic nature of protein interfaces, and the difficulty in capturing weak or absent inter-chain co-evolutionary signals. While innovative tools like DeepSCFold and hybrid AF/docking methods are pushing the boundaries of accuracy—demonstrating significant improvements over baseline AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 on standardized benchmarks—substantial challenges persist. Future research must focus on improving predictions for flexible complexes, transient interactions, and systems lacking evolutionary signals. Overcoming these hurdles will be key to unlocking a deeper understanding of cellular function and accelerating structure-based drug design.

Key Physical and Evolutionary Principles Governing Protein Complex Assembly

Protein complexes are the workhorses of the cell, executing nearly every essential biological process, from signal transduction to metabolism. The precise assembly of these complexes is critical for their function, and alterations in these protein-protein interactions (PPIs) can be a direct cause of disease [6]. Understanding the principles that govern how these complexes form—their assembly pathways—is therefore a fundamental pursuit in structural biology and has profound implications for drug development, as disrupting or stabilizing PPIs is gaining pharmacological relevance [6]. These principles can be broadly categorized into physical constraints, which dictate the spatial and chemical compatibility between interacting subunits, and evolutionary constraints, which are imprinted in the genetic sequences of proteins and revealed through patterns of co-evolution. This article frames these principles within the context of a critical modern challenge: accurately predicting the three-dimensional structures of protein complexes, known as multimer prediction. We will assess the performance of state-of-the-art computational tools, exploring how they leverage these fundamental principles to bridge the gap from amino acid sequence to quaternary structure.

Fundamental Principles of Assembly

The assembly of protein complexes is not a random process but follows a set of definable principles that can be systematically organized and even predicted.

Physical Principles and the "Periodic Table" of Complexes

Structurally, the vast majority of protein complexes adhere to a limited set of quaternary structure topologies. Research has shown that most assembly transitions can be classified into three basic types, which can be used to exhaustively enumerate a large set of possible quaternary structure topologies. This organization enables a natural classification of protein complexes into a conceptual "periodic table," which can accurately predict the expected frequencies of various quaternary structure topologies, including those not yet observed [7]. This framework reveals that complex assembly is governed by a finite set of physical rules concerning symmetry and geometry.

A key physical determinant of assembly is structural complementarity. The three-dimensional shapes of interacting proteins must fit together, much like a lock and key, though often with conformational adjustments in an "induced fit" model [1]. This complementarity is driven by the physicochemical properties of the amino acids at the binding interfaces, involving hydrophobic interactions, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic complementarity. The stability of a complex is a direct result of the sum of these physical interactions across the PBI.

Evolutionary Principles and Co-translational Assembly

From an evolutionary perspective, the sequences of interacting proteins often contain correlated mutations—a phenomenon known as co-evolution. When two residues at a protein-protein interface are physically linked, a mutation in one residue may be compensated by a complementary mutation in its binding partner to preserve the interaction over evolutionary time. These co-evolutionary signals, derived from multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) of homologous proteins, provide a powerful indirect readout of spatial proximity and are a cornerstone of modern deep learning-based structure prediction tools [8].

Beyond evolutionary history inscribed in sequences, the assembly process itself is mechanistically linked to translation. Recent work demonstrates that co-translational assembly—where a protein subunit begins to interact with its partner while still being synthesized by the ribosome—is a prevalent and governed mechanism. This process is associated with specific structural characteristics of complexes, particularly involving mutually stabilized subunits that are unstable in isolation. Such subunits exhibit synchronized expression and proteostasis with their partner, and the entire process can be predicted using structural signatures, influencing mRNA co-localization and gene expression [9]. This reveals a profound connection between protein structure, complex assembly, and the central dogma of biology.

The following diagram illustrates the core logical relationships between these fundamental principles and the assembly process.

Experimental Methods for Probing Assembly

While computational predictions are powerful, they require validation and are often informed by experimental data. A key modern method for probing protein complex dynamics is FLiP-MS (serial Ultrafiltration combined with Limited Proteolysis-coupled Mass Spectrometry) [6].

Detailed Protocol: FLiP-MS Workflow

FLiP-MS is a structural proteomics workflow designed to generate a library of peptide markers specific to changes in PPIs by probing differences in protease susceptibility between complex-bound and monomeric forms of proteins.

• Lysate Preparation: A cell lysate is prepared under native conditions to preserve endogenous protein complexes. To account for RNA-binding proteins and RNA-protein complexes, lysates can be incubated with RNases to destabilize RNA-dependent complexes before size separation.
• Serial Ultrafiltration: The native lysate is loaded onto a series of molecular weight cutoff (MWCO) filters for size-based fractionation. A typical protocol sequentially uses 100-kDa, 50-kDa, 30-kDa, and 10-kDa MWCO filters. This results in four fractions enriched for proteins and protein assemblies of progressively decreasing molecular weight.
• Limited Proteolysis (LiP): Each protein fraction is subjected to limited proteolysis using a broad-specificity protease (e.g., Proteinase K). The key is to use a low protease-to-protein ratio and short digestion time so that protease accessibility reflects protein conformation and complex assembly state rather than just sequence.
• Mass Spectrometry Analysis: The proteolyzed peptides from each fraction are analyzed by quantitative liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS). This identifies and quantifies the peptides generated from each fraction.
• Marker Library Generation: Peptides that show significant differences in abundance between the high-MW (complex-bound) and low-MW (monomeric) fractions are identified. These peptides are "PPI markers," as their protease accessibility changes with the assembly state. These markers often map directly to PBIs or to regions undergoing allosteric changes upon complex formation.
• Application to Perturbations: The generated library of PPI markers can be integrated with standard LiP-MS data from cells under different conditions (e.g., drug treatment, disease state). This allows for global profiling of specific PPI changes, rather than all conformational changes, directly from unfractionated lysates at high throughput [6].

The workflow for this key experimental method is detailed below.

The Computational Toolkit for Multimer Prediction

The revolutionary progress in protein monomer structure prediction, led by AlphaFold2, has paved the way for tackling the more formidable challenge of predicting the structures of protein complexes (multimers). Several tools have been developed, each with distinct approaches and performance characteristics.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Protein Complex Structure Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Primary Methodology	Key Input(s)	Strengths	Reported Limitations
AlphaFold-Multimer [10]	Extension of AlphaFold2, trained on protein complexes. Uses MSA-derived co-evolution.	Single or multiple sequences (for complexes).	Optimized for protein-protein complexes; 'full' AlphaFold algorithm.	Lower accuracy than AF2 on monomers; slow due to exhaustive MSA step [10] [1].
ColabFold [10]	Leverages faster MMseqs2 for MSA generation; built on AlphaFold2/AlphaFold-Multimer.	Single polypeptides or multiple sequences.	3X-5X faster than AlphaFold2/AlphaFold-Multimer; convenient for single chains and complexes.	Slightly different results from AlphaFold due to different MSA tools [10].
AlphaFold3 [1]	End-to-end deep learning model for biomolecular systems (proteins, nucleic acids, ligands).	Sequences of multiple biomolecules.	Generalist model capable of predicting various interaction types.	In CASP15 benchmark, achieved lower TM-score than DeepSCFold [1].
DeepSCFold [1]	Predicts sequence-derived structural complementarity and interaction probability to build paired MSAs.	Protein complex sequences.	Significantly increases accuracy; effective for targets with weak co-evolution (e.g., antibody-antigen).	Requires construction of complex pMSAs, which can be computationally intensive.
OmegaFold [10]	Neural network that operates directly on input sequence, without multiple sequence alignments.	Single amino acid sequence.	Much faster; does not require extensive sequence coverage; handles longer sequences (up to 4096 aa).	For proteins with large sequence coverage, may perform worse than MSA-based tools [10].
IgFold [10]	Specialized deep learning model for antibody structures.	Sequence of antibody Fab region.	Performs better than AlphaFold on predicted Fab structures of antibodies.	Works only on Fab structures, not general protein complexes [10].
TX2-121-1	TX2-121-1, MF:C42H52N8O3, MW:716.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
YF135	YF135, MF:C63H75ClN12O7S, MW:1179.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Performance Benchmarking on Standardized Datasets

Quantitative benchmarking on standardized datasets like those from the CASP competitions provides an objective measure of tool performance. The table below summarizes key metrics from recent evaluations.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance Benchmarking of Multimer Prediction Tools

Tool	Test Dataset	Global Structure Metric (TM-score)	Interface Accuracy Metric	Key Comparative Finding
DeepSCFold [1]	CASP15 Multimer Targets	Not explicitly reported	Not explicitly reported	Achieved an 11.6% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer.
DeepSCFold [1]	CASP15 Multimer Targets	Not explicitly reported	Not explicitly reported	Achieved a 10.3% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold3.
DeepSCFold [1]	SAbDab Antibody-Antigen Complexes	N/A	Success Rate for Binding Interface Prediction	Enhanced success rate by 24.7% over AlphaFold-Multimer.
DeepSCFold [1]	SAbDab Antibody-Antigen Complexes	N/A	Success Rate for Binding Interface Prediction	Enhanced success rate by 12.4% over AlphaFold3.
AlphaFold2 [8]	CASP14 Monomer Targets	Median backbone accuracy of 0.96 Å (Cα r.m.s.d.)	N/A	Greatly outperformed other methods, establishing new level of accuracy.

To conduct research in this field, scientists rely on a combination of computational databases, software tools, and experimental resources.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Complex Studies

Category	Item / Resource	Function and Utility in Research
Databases	UniProt [1]	A comprehensive repository of protein sequence and functional information, essential for building multiple sequence alignments (MSAs).
	Protein Data Bank (PDB) [1]	The single worldwide archive of experimental 3D structures of proteins, nucleic acids, and complexes; used for training, template-based modeling, and validation.
	ColabFold DB [1]	A pre-computed database of MSAs and protein templates, integrated into the ColabFold suite for rapid structure prediction.
	Predictomes [11]	A classifier-curated database of over 40,000 AlphaFold-Multimer predictions for human genome maintenance proteins; enables hypothesis generation.
Software & Tools	HHblits/JackHMMER/MMseqs2 [1]	Sensitive sequence search tools used to build multiple sequence alignments from large sequence databases, a critical input for AlphaFold and related tools.
	AlphaFold-Multimer [11] [1]	A widely used deep learning model specifically fine-tuned for predicting structures of protein complexes from sequence.
	SPOC Classifier [11]	A machine learning classifier that filters AlphaFold-Multimer predictions to separate true from false positive protein-protein interactions in proteome-wide screens.
Experimental Methods	FLiP-MS [6]	A structural proteomics workflow to generate peptide markers reporting on protein complex assembly states, enabling global profiling of PPI dynamics from lysates.
	Size-Exclusion Chromatography (SEC) [6]	Used to separate protein complexes by their hydrodynamic radius, often coupled with other techniques to analyze complex size and composition.

The assembly of protein complexes is governed by a finite set of physical and evolutionary principles, including structural complementarity, conserved interaction modes, and co-evolutionary signals. The emergence of deep learning has created a paradigm shift in our ability to predict the structures of these complexes from sequence alone. However, as the quantitative benchmarks show, the accuracy of multimer prediction tools varies significantly. While AlphaFold-Multimer and ColabFold provide robust and accessible platforms, specialized next-generation tools like DeepSCFold demonstrate that moving beyond purely sequence-based co-evolution to incorporate sequence-derived structural complementarity can yield substantial improvements, especially for challenging targets like antibody-antigen complexes. The field is moving towards an integrated future where high-throughput experimental methods like FLiP-MS and computationally curated databases like Predictomes will work in concert with increasingly sophisticated AI models. This synergy will be crucial for achieving a proteome-wide structural understanding of protein complexes, ultimately accelerating drug discovery and our fundamental knowledge of cellular machinery.

Protein complexes represent the fundamental functional units in cellular processes, yet determining their precise three-dimensional structures remains a formidable challenge in structural biology. Experimental techniques such as X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) face significant limitations when applied to large, dynamic, or transient complexes [1] [12]. This experimental bottleneck has created a substantial data gap, impeding our understanding of critical biological mechanisms and hindering drug discovery efforts.

The emergence of computational prediction tools has revolutionized structural biology by offering alternatives to bridge this gap. This guide provides an objective comparison of modern multimer prediction systems, examining their performance across different complex types, detailing their methodological approaches, and presenting quantitative benchmarking data to inform researchers in structural biology and drug development.

The Experimental Bottleneck in Complex Structure Determination

Experimental structure determination faces inherent limitations that contribute to the current data gap. Protein-protein interactions often involve large, flexible assemblies that resist crystallization, while cryo-EM struggles with complexes exhibiting structural heterogeneity [13]. Additionally, many biologically important complexes such as antibody-antigen systems and virus-host interactions lack clear co-evolutionary signals at the sequence level, making them particularly challenging targets [1]. These limitations have created an imbalance in structural databases, with interfaces involving disordered protein regions being significantly underrepresented [14].

Comparative Performance Analysis of Multimer Prediction Tools

Global and Local Accuracy Metrics

Comprehensive benchmarking reveals significant differences in performance across current multimer prediction tools. The following table summarizes quantitative performance metrics from recent evaluations:

Table 1: Global Accuracy Metrics for Multimer Prediction Tools

Prediction Tool	TM-score Improvement	Interface Accuracy	Key Strengths
DeepSCFold	+11.6% vs. AF-Multimer, +10.3% vs. AF3 [1]	High (24.7% improvement for antibody-antigen interfaces) [1]	Excels in complexes lacking co-evolution signals
AlphaFold3	Limited global gains over AF2 [15]	Superior for antigen-antibody complexes [15]	Versatile across biomolecular systems
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline for comparisons	Moderate	Established methodology
AF_unmasked	High when templates available [13]	High (DockQ >0.8 with templates) [13]	Effective for large complexes (>10k residues)

Performance Across Complex Types

Different prediction tools exhibit varying strengths depending on the biological context and available input data:

Table 2: Performance Across Complex Types

Complex Type	Best Performing Tools	Key Limitations
General Protein Complexes	DeepSCFold, AlphaFold3 [1] [15]	AF3 shows limited global accuracy gains [15]
Antibody-Antigen Complexes	DeepSCFold, AlphaFold3 [1] [15]	Both outperform AF-Multimer significantly [1]
Peptide-Protein Complexes	AlphaFold3, AlphaFold-Multimer (comparable) [15]	Nearly indistinguishable performance [15]
Large Multimeric Assemblies	AF_unmasked [13]	Standard AF struggles beyond 10k residues [13]
RNA-Containing Complexes	AlphaFold3 [15]	Superior to RoseTTAFoldNA [15]

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DeepSCFold: Sequence-Derived Structure Complementarity

DeepSCFold introduces a novel approach that leverages structural complementarity information directly from sequence data, rather than relying solely on co-evolutionary signals [1].

DeepSCFold Workflow: Integrating structural similarity and interaction probability predictions

The protocol involves four key stages:

• Monomeric MSA Generation: Initial multiple sequence alignments are constructed from diverse databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [1].

• Structural Similarity Prediction: A deep learning model predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) between query sequences and their homologs, enhancing traditional sequence similarity metrics [1].

• Interaction Probability Estimation: A separate model predicts interaction probabilities (pIA-scores) for sequence pairs across different subunit MSAs [1].

• Paired MSA Construction: pSS-scores and pIA-scores guide the systematic concatenation of monomeric homologs into paired MSAs, incorporating species annotations and known complex data [1].

AF_unmasked: Integrating Experimental Data

AF_unmasked addresses AlphaFold's limitation in utilizing quaternary structural information by modifying template input mechanisms without retraining the neural network [13].

AF_unmasked Workflow: Leveraging quaternary templates for enhanced prediction

Key methodological innovations:

• Cross-Chain Template Utilization: Unlike standard AlphaFold, AF_unmasked preserves and utilizes distance constraints across protein chains in templates [13].

• Structural Inpainting: The method can fill missing regions in incomplete experimental structures by integrating evolutionary restraints from MSAs [13].

• Experimental Integration: Imperfect experimental structures with clashing interfaces or missing components can be used as starting points for refinement [13].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource	Type	Function/Application
UniProt [1]	Database	Protein sequence and functional information
Protein Data Bank [16] [17]	Database	Experimentally determined structural templates
ColabFold DB [1]	Database	Pre-computed multiple sequence alignments
CASP Benchmark Sets [1] [13]	Evaluation	Standardized datasets for method validation
SAbDab Database [1]	Specialized Database	Antibody-antigen complex structures for benchmarking
HHblits/JackHMMER [1]	Software Tool	Multiple sequence alignment construction
P2Rank [17]	Software Tool	Binding pocket prediction in multimeric complexes
AutoDock Vina [17]	Software Tool	Enzyme-substrate docking validation

The current landscape of multimer prediction tools demonstrates significant progress in addressing the experimental data gap in structural biology. DeepSCFold excels in scenarios with limited co-evolutionary signals, particularly in antibody-antigen systems, while AF_unmasked provides robust solutions for integrating experimental data and modeling large complexes. AlphaFold3 offers versatility across diverse biomolecular systems but shows limited global accuracy improvements for standard protein complexes.

The choice of tool depends heavily on the specific biological context, with structural complementarity approaches (DeepSCFold) outperforming for challenging interfaces lacking co-evolution, and template-integration methods (AF_unmasked) providing superior results when partial structural information exists. As these tools evolve, their increasing accuracy and specialization promise to further bridge the experimental data gap, enabling researchers to explore previously inaccessible aspects of cellular machinery and accelerating structure-based drug design.

The revolutionary progress in artificial intelligence has dramatically improved our ability to predict the structures of multimeric protein complexes, moving the field's central challenge from structure generation to quality assessment. Accurately evaluating the reliability of predicted complex structures is now paramount for researchers in structural biology and drug development who depend on these models for functional analysis, protein engineering, and therapeutic design [18] [19]. Without known experimental structures for comparison, researchers must rely on confidence metrics generated by the prediction tools themselves, making it crucial to understand their strengths, limitations, and optimal application ranges [18].

This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of evaluation metrics for protein complex structures, categorizing them into global accuracy measures that assess the overall complex and interface-specific measures that focus on binding regions. We objectively analyze the performance of state-of-the-art prediction tools—including AlphaFold3, DeepSCFold, and ColabFold—using quantitative benchmarking data and detail the experimental protocols that yield these insights. Understanding this evolving landscape of assessment methodologies enables researchers to make informed decisions about which models to trust for specific biological applications.

Categorizing Accuracy Metrics

Global Structure Assessment Metrics

Global metrics provide an overall evaluation of a predicted protein complex's quality. The most established reference-based metric is DockQ, which combines interface quality, model completeness, and structural accuracy into a single score ranging from 0 to 1 [18] [20]. DockQ scores correlate with CAPRI (Critical Assessment of Prediction of Interactions) quality categories: incorrect (DockQ < 0.23), acceptable (0.23-0.49), medium (0.49-0.8), and high quality (> 0.8) [18].

In the absence of a known reference structure, predicted metrics are essential. The predicted Local Distance Difference Test (pLDDT) measures per-residue local confidence on a scale from 0-100, with higher values indicating greater reliability [18]. The predicted Template Modeling Score (pTM) estimates the global fold quality, while the interface pTM (ipTM) specifically assesses the interaction interface by calculating a weighted combination of pTM and interface alignment scores [18]. The Predicted Aligned Error (PAE) represents a model's confidence in the relative positions of residue pairs, with lower error values indicating higher confidence [21].

Table 1: Key Global Assessment Metrics for Protein Complex Structures

Metric	Type	Scale	Optimal Range	Primary Application
DockQ	Reference-based	0-1	> 0.8 (High quality)	Overall complex quality assessment
pLDDT	Predicted	0-100	> 80 (High confidence)	Per-residue local structure confidence
pTM	Predicted	0-1	> 0.8 (High quality)	Global fold quality
ipTM	Predicted	0-1	> 0.8 (High quality)	Interface region quality
PAE	Predicted	Ångström	Lower values better	Relative residue position confidence

Interface-Specific Assessment Metrics

Interface-specific metrics focus exclusively on the binding regions between chains, which are critical for understanding biological function. The interface pLDDT (ipLDDT) calculates the average pLDDT specifically for residues located at the protein-protein interface, providing a localized confidence measure [18]. The interface PAE (iPAE) examines the PAE matrix specifically between interacting chains rather than within them, highlighting confidence in relative chain positioning [18].

Several specialized interface scores have been developed specifically for complex assessment. The predicted DockQ (pDockQ) estimates the true DockQ score by considering the number of interfacial contacts and the average pLDDT of interacting residues [18]. Its successor, pDockQ2, was specifically optimized for multimeric protein complexes [18]. VoroIF-GNN utilizes graph neural networks and Voronoi tessellation to create interface graphs, generating contact-based accuracy estimates for entire interfaces [18].

Table 2: Specialized Interface Assessment Metrics

Metric	Calculation Basis	Strengths	Limitations
ipLDDT	Average pLDDT at interface residues	Easy to calculate, intuitive	Does not capture inter-chain geometry
iPAE	PAE between different chains	Directly assesses inter-chain confidence	Requires parsing complex matrix output
pDockQ2	Number of contacts + residue quality	Specifically designed for multimers	May overestimate quality in some cases
VoroIF-GNN	Voronoi tessellation + GNN	Detailed, contact-based interface estimate	Computationally intensive

Benchmarking Prediction Tools

Performance Comparison of State-of-the-Art Tools

Recent comprehensive benchmarking studies have quantitatively compared the performance of major protein complex prediction tools. A 2025 analysis of 223 heterodimeric complexes revealed significant differences in performance across methods when assessed using DockQ quality thresholds [18].

AlphaFold3 achieved the highest percentage of high-quality predictions at 39.8%, with the lowest rate of incorrect models (19.2%) [18]. ColabFold with templates performed similarly to AlphaFold3, producing 35.2% high-quality models [18]. In contrast, ColabFold without templates generated the lowest proportion of high-quality models (28.9%) and the highest percentage of incorrect models (32.3%) [18]. These results demonstrate that both the choice of prediction tool and the use of template information significantly impact output quality.

The recently developed DeepSCFold pipeline shows particular promise, demonstrating significant improvements over existing methods in CASP15 benchmarks. DeepSCFold achieved improvements of 11.6% and 10.3% in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [1]. For challenging antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhanced the prediction success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [1].

Table 3: Performance Comparison of Protein Complex Prediction Tools

Prediction Tool	High Quality Models	Medium Quality Models	Incorrect Models	Notable Applications
AlphaFold3	39.8%	41.0%	19.2%	General biomolecular complexes
ColabFold (with templates)	35.2%	34.7%	30.1%	Protein-protein complexes
ColabFold (without templates)	28.9%	38.8%	32.3%	Template-free modeling
DeepSCFold	N/A	N/A	N/A	Antibody-antigen complexes

Integrated Approaches and Specialized Applications

For particularly challenging targets, integrated approaches that combine deep learning with physics-based methods have shown enhanced success. The AlphaRED (AlphaFold-initiated Replica Exchange Docking) pipeline integrates AlphaFold with RosettaDock and replica exchange sampling to address cases involving significant conformational changes upon binding [20]. This hybrid approach successfully docks failed AlphaFold predictions, achieving CAPRI acceptable-quality or better predictions for 63% of benchmark targets where AlphaFold-Multimer alone failed [20]. Particularly impressive is its performance on challenging antigen-antibody complexes, where it demonstrated a 43% success rate compared to AlphaFold-Multimer's 20% [20].

For non-standard molecular interactions, specialized assessments reveal important limitations. In evaluating protein-carbohydrate complexes using the novel BCAPIN benchmark, current AI models achieved approximately 85% acceptable accuracy but showed declining predictive power with increasing carbohydrate polymer length [22]. This highlights the need for continued method development for specific interaction classes relevant to immunology and drug design.

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

Standardized Benchmarking Methodology

Robust evaluation of prediction tools requires standardized benchmarking protocols. A typical methodology begins with curating high-quality experimental structures from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), focusing on heterodimeric complexes solved by X-ray crystallography at high resolution [18]. The benchmark set should exclude homodimers where AlphaFold2 generally performs better, instead focusing on more challenging heterocomplexes [18].

For each prediction tool, multiple models per target (typically five) should be generated using consistent hardware and software configurations [18]. ColabFold predictions generally employ three recycles followed by energy minimization [18]. All predictions should be performed using sequence databases available up to a specific cutoff date to ensure temporal validity and prevent data leakage [1].

The quality assessment pipeline should calculate both reference-based metrics (DockQ against experimental structures) and predicted metrics (pLDDT, pTM, ipTM, PAE, pDockQ2, VoroIF) for each model [18]. Results are then aggregated across the benchmark set to determine the percentage of models in each quality category and calculate statistical significance of performance differences.

Benchmarking Workflow for Prediction Tools

Advanced Integrated Protocols

For hybrid approaches like AlphaRED, the experimental protocol involves additional steps. First, AlphaFold confidence measures (particularly pLDDT) are repurposed to estimate protein flexibility and docking accuracy [20]. These metrics are then incorporated into the ReplicaDock 2.0 protocol, which performs replica exchange docking to extensively sample conformational space [20].

The process involves generating structural templates using AlphaFold, then applying physics-based refinement with RosettaDock to improve interface geometry [20]. This integrated protocol leverages both evolutionary information from deep learning and physicochemical realism from molecular mechanics, demonstrating that combined approaches can overcome limitations of purely AI-based methods, especially for flexible binding partners.

Table 4: Key Research Resources for Protein Complex Prediction and Assessment

Resource Category	Specific Tools	Primary Function	Access Information
Structure Prediction	AlphaFold3, DeepSCFold, ColabFold	Generate protein complex models	Web servers/Open source
Quality Assessment	pDockQ2, VoroIF-GNN, ipTM	Evaluate model accuracy without reference	Integrated/Standalone
Visualization & Analysis	ChimeraX, PICKLUSTER v.2.0	Interactive model inspection and scoring	Open source plugins
Benchmark Datasets	BCAPIN, CASP targets	Standardized performance testing	Public repositories
Reference Metrics	DockQ	Ground truth quality assessment	Open source code

Based on current benchmarking evidence, we recommend:

For general protein complex prediction, AlphaFold3 provides the highest overall accuracy, particularly for structures with standard binding motifs. Its integrated confidence measures (pLDDT, PAE) offer reliable guidance for model selection [21] [18].

For challenging antibody-antigen complexes or cases with limited co-evolutionary signals, DeepSCFold demonstrates superior performance by leveraging structural complementarity rather than relying solely on sequence co-evolution [1].

For complexes involving significant conformational changes, integrated approaches like AlphaRED that combine deep learning with physics-based sampling outperform purely AI-based methods [20].

When assessing model quality, interface-specific scores (ipTM, pDockQ2) provide more reliable evaluation of biological relevance than global scores alone [18]. For the most comprehensive assessment, researchers should consult multiple complementary metrics rather than relying on a single score.

The field continues to evolve rapidly, with ongoing developments in assessing diverse molecular interactions including carbohydrates, nucleic acids, and small molecules [22] [19]. As these methodologies mature, standardized assessment protocols and specialized benchmarks will remain essential for objectively measuring progress and guiding researchers toward the most appropriate tools for their specific applications.

A Deep Dive into State-of-the-Art Tools and Their Practical Use

The accurate prediction of multimeric protein complexes is crucial for advancing our understanding of cellular functions and for rational drug design. Within this research context, DeepMind's AlphaFold suite has emerged as a transformative tool. This guide provides a detailed objective comparison of two key iterations: AlphaFold-Multimer, an extension of AlphaFold2 specifically designed for protein-protein complexes, and AlphaFold3, a general-purpose model for predicting structures of complexes containing proteins, nucleic acids, ligands, and more. We will dissect their architectures, inputs, outputs, and performance, framing the analysis within the broader thesis of assessing the accuracy of multimer prediction tools.

The architectures of AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 represent significant evolutionary stages in deep learning for structural biology. The core differences are visualized in the schematic below.

Architectural Workflow Comparison

AlphaFold-Multimer: A Specialized Extension

AlphaFold-Multimer builds directly upon the AlphaFold2 (AF2) framework. Its architecture retains the Evoformer module for processing Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) and the structure module that predicts atomic coordinates using a frame-based representation of amino acids, focusing on Cα atoms and side-chain torsion angles [23] [24]. Its primary adaptation for complexes was in the training procedure; it was trained on protein complexes and introduces a new loss function that prioritizes the accuracy of interfacial interactions, yielding the interface predicted TM (ipTM) score alongside the standard pTM [23] [25].

AlphaFold3: A Unified Diffusion-Based Framework

AlphaFold3 marks a substantial architectural departure. It replaces the Evoformer with a simpler Pairformer stack, which processes a paired representation of the input sequences and de-emphasizes the MSA representation [21] [24] [26]. Most notably, the frame-based structure module is replaced by a diffusion-based module that predicts raw atom coordinates directly [21]. This approach involves a generative process that starts with noise and iteratively refines the structure, allowing AF3 to natively handle proteins, nucleic acids, ligands, and ions without specialized parameterizations [21] [24]. This diffusion process also eliminates the need for explicit stereochemical penalty losses during training [21].

Inputs and Outputs: A Comparative Analysis

The capabilities of both systems are defined by their input requirements and the outputs they generate.

Input Requirements

• AlphaFold-Multimer: The primary input is a FASTA file containing the amino acid sequences of all protein chains in the complex [27] [25]. Users can optionally provide custom MSAs or template structures to guide the prediction [28].
• AlphaFold3: The input is more versatile, accepting protein sequences, nucleic acid sequences, and molecular definitions for ligands and modified residues using the SMILES (Simplified Molecular-Input Line-Entry System) notation [23] [21]. This allows it to model a vast range of biomolecular complexes from sequence and chemical description alone.

Outputs and Confidence Metrics

Both systems output 3D atomic coordinates in PDB and mmCIF formats, accompanied by confidence metrics essential for interpreting prediction reliability [28] [27].

Table 1: Comparison of Outputs and Confidence Metrics

Feature	AlphaFold-Multimer	AlphaFold3
Primary Output	Structure of protein complexes [23]	Structure of general biomolecular complexes (proteins, nucleic acids, ligands, ions) [23] [21]
Local Confidence	pLDDT (per-residue local distance difference test) [28]	pLDDT (per-residue local distance difference test) [23]
Relative Domain Confidence	PAE (Predicted Aligned Error) matrix [28]	PAE (Predicted Aligned Error) matrix [21]
Complex-Specific Scores	pTM (predicted TM-score) and ipTM (interface pTM) for ranking models and assessing interface accuracy [25]	-
Additional Metric	-	PDE (Predicted Distance Error) matrix, estimating error in pairwise atom distances [21]

Performance and Experimental Benchmarking

Independent benchmarking reveals the relative strengths and weaknesses of each tool across different biomolecular categories. A core protocol for evaluation involves comparing predicted models to experimentally determined ground-truth structures using metrics like DockQ (for interfaces) and TM-score (for global fold accuracy).

Performance on Protein Complexes

AlphaFold-Multimer set a new standard for protein-protein complex prediction. However, its performance can be inconsistent. It shows a bias towards interfaces formed by ordered protein regions, while struggling with interfaces involving disordered segments [14]. On the CASP15 benchmark, AlphaFold-Multimer serves as a strong baseline.

AlphaFold3 demonstrates substantially improved accuracy for certain types of protein-protein interactions, with one study reporting a significant leap in antibody-antigen prediction accuracy compared to AlphaFold-Multimer v.2.3 [21].

Performance on Diverse Biomolecules

This is where AlphaFold3's unified architecture shows its distinct advantage.

Table 2: Performance Across Biomolecular Interaction Types

Complex Type	AlphaFold-Multimer Performance	AlphaFold3 Performance
Protein-Protein	State-of-the-art baseline, but struggles with disordered interfaces and antibodies [23] [14].	Improved accuracy, particularly for antibody-antigen complexes [21].
Protein-Nucleic Acid	Not supported. Requires separate tools.	"Substantially higher accuracy" compared to previous nucleic-acid-specific predictors [21].
Protein-Ligand	Not supported. Requires docking tools.	"Far greater accuracy" compared to state-of-the-art docking tools like Vina, even without using the protein's structure as input [21].

Recent independent benchmarking provides direct quantitative comparisons. In an evaluation on CASP15 multimer targets, DeepSCFold, a method that enhances AlphaFold-Multimer with sequence-derived structural complementarity, was reported to achieve an 11.6% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer and a 10.3% improvement over AlphaFold3 [1]. In a more challenging test on antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, the same study found DeepSCFold enhanced the success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% over AlphaFold-Multimer and 12.4% over AlphaFold3 [1]. This suggests that while AF3 is a powerful generalist, strategies that augment AF-Multimer with specialized information can still yield superior performance for specific tasks like antibody-antigen modeling.

Common Limitations and Failure Modes

Despite their advancements, both systems share fundamental limitations rooted in their training data and architecture:

• Dependence on Evolutionary Information: Both struggle to predict proteins with few homologs, such as antibodies [23].
• Static Structures: They predict a single, static structure and cannot model conformational changes or dynamics [23].
• Disordered Regions: Regions that are intrinsically disordered in reality may be predicted as structured or as unstructured "noodles" [23].
• Environmental Factors: Structures dependent on specific environmental conditions (e.g., membrane proteins in different states) are poorly captured [23].
• Hallucination Risk: AlphaFold3's diffusion decoder can sometimes "hallucinate" plausible-looking but incorrect secondary structures, particularly alpha-helices, in regions of low confidence. This makes consulting the pLDDT score critical [23].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents and Resources for Multimer Structure Prediction

Reagent / Resource	Function / Description	Relevance in Workflow
FASTA Sequence File	A text-based file format for representing nucleotide or peptide sequences.	The primary input for both AlphaFold-Multimer (protein chains) and AlphaFold3 (protein/nucleic acid chains) [27] [25].
Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA)	A collection of evolutionary-related sequences aligned to highlight conserved regions.	Provides co-evolutionary signals; can be generated automatically or supplied by the user to guide predictions in AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 [28] [26].
SMILES String	A line notation for encoding the structure of chemical molecules.	Required input for defining ligands, ions, and modified residues in AlphaFold3 [21].
pLDDT (per-residue confidence)	A score between 0-100 representing local confidence at each residue position.	Critical for interpreting prediction quality. Residues with pLDDT > 90 are high confidence, while < 50 are very low confidence [23] [28].
PAE (Predicted Aligned Error) Plot	A plot depicting the expected positional error between residues.	Used to assess inter-domain and inter-chain confidence. A low PAE between chains suggests high confidence in their relative orientation [28].
PDB / mmCIF Format	Standard file formats for storing 3D structural data of biological molecules.	The standard output formats for predicted models, viewable in software like PyMOL or ChimeraX [28] [27].
JNJ-65355394	JNJ-65355394, MF:C19H26N4OS, MW:358.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
BIBF 1202-13C,d3	BIBF 1202-13C,d3, MF:C30H31N5O4, MW:529.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

In conclusion, the choice between AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 is context-dependent. AlphaFold-Multimer remains a highly specialized and effective tool for researchers focused exclusively on protein-protein complexes, especially when integrated into pipelines that enhance its MSA construction. Its well-defined protein-specific outputs like ipTM are valuable for dedicated interaction studies. In contrast, AlphaFold3 represents a monumental leap towards a unified predictive framework for structural biology. Its ability to model a vast spectrum of biomolecular interactions with high accuracy from sequence alone makes it an unparalleled tool for holistic cellular modeling and drug discovery efforts that involve ligands and nucleic acids.

However, the benchmarking data confirms that the field of multimer prediction is not settled. The performance of methods like DeepSCFold demonstrates that supplementing evolutionary signals with structural complementarity information can surpass a generalist model for specific challenges. Therefore, the assessment of accuracy must be ongoing, considering the specific biological question, the molecules involved, and the continual emergence of new specialized methods that build upon these foundational tools.

Predicting the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes, or multimers, is a fundamental challenge in structural biology with profound implications for understanding cellular functions and accelerating drug discovery. Unlike protein monomers, whose prediction was revolutionized by AlphaFold2, protein complexes require the accurate modeling of both intra-chain and inter-chain residue-residue interactions, presenting a significantly more difficult problem [1]. Although deep learning methods like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 have advanced the field, their reliance on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals presents limitations, particularly for complexes lacking clear co-evolution, such as antibody-antigen systems [1]. This assessment evaluates a new generation of protein complex prediction tools, focusing on how DeepSCFold's innovative approach to leveraging sequence-derived structural complementarity addresses these limitations and enhances predictive accuracy.

Table 1: Core Protein Complex Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Primary Methodology	Key Innovation
DeepSCFold	Sequence-derived structural complementarity with paired MSA construction	Uses pSS-score and pIA-score to capture structural interaction patterns beyond co-evolution [1].
AlphaFold-Multimer	Extended AlphaFold2 architecture for multimers	Adapted for multiple chains but retains limitations in capturing inter-chain interactions [1].
AlphaFold3	End-to-end diffusion model for biomolecular complexes	Predicts complexes of proteins, nucleic acids, and more, but accuracy on protein complexes can be limited [1].
Protein-Protein Docking	Assembling monomers based on shape complementarity	Exemplified by ZDOCK, HADDOCK; challenged by conformational sampling and interface flexibility [1].

DeepSCFold introduces a novel computational protocol that shifts the paradigm from relying solely on sequence co-evolution to explicitly leveraging structural complementarity inferred directly from sequence information. The pipeline integrates two key sequence-based deep learning models to construct superior paired Multiple Sequence Alignments (pMSAs), which are then used by AlphaFold-Multimer for final structure prediction [1] [29].

• Protein-Protein Structural Similarity Prediction (pSS-score): This deep learning model predicts the Template Modeling score (TM-score)—a measure of structural similarity—between a query protein sequence and its homologs found in monomeric MSAs. The pSS-score integrates one-hot encoding, BLOSUM-62 substitution matrix, physicochemical features, and embeddings from the protein language model ESM2. The model architecture employs a multi-scale retention module to capture long-range dependencies in protein sequences, a criss-cross attention module to generate a sequence-pair representation, and a down-sample module for feature refinement [30]. This allows for ranking and selecting monomeric MSA homologs based on predicted structural similarity, not just sequence similarity.

• Interaction Probability Prediction (pIA-score): This component predicts the probability of interaction between two protein sequences, again using only sequence-level features. It shares the same sophisticated architecture as the pSS-score model. The predicted pIA-scores are used to systematically concatenate sequence homologs from different subunit MSAs, thereby constructing biologically relevant paired MSAs that guide the structure prediction model toward accurate complex assembly [1] [30].

• Integrated Paired MSA Construction and Complex Modeling: The pipeline starts by generating monomeric MSAs for each protein chain from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, BFD, MGnify, ColabFold DB). The pSS-score refines these monomeric MSAs, and the pIA-score then pairs sequences across different MSAs. Additional paired MSAs are built using multi-source biological information like species annotation and known complex data from the PDB. This ensemble of high-quality pMSAs is fed into AlphaFold-Multimer. The top-ranked model, selected by an in-house quality assessment tool (DeepUMQA-X), is used as an input template for a final refinement iteration, producing the output structure [1] [29].

Diagram 1: The DeepSCFold prediction workflow.

Diagram 2: The deep learning model for pSS and pIA-score prediction.

Performance Benchmarking: Quantitative Comparisons

To objectively assess its performance, DeepSCFold was rigorously benchmarked against state-of-the-art methods using standard datasets. The evaluation metrics focused on both global structure accuracy (TM-score) and local interface quality (DockQ and interface success rate).

Table 2: Performance on CASP15 Multimeric Targets (TM-score) [1]

Prediction Method	Average TM-score	Improvement over Baseline
DeepSCFold	To be reported	-
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline	-
AlphaFold3	Baseline	-
Reported Improvement	DeepSCFold achieves an improvement of 11.6% and 10.3% in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively.

Table 3: Performance on Antibody-Antigen Complexes (SAbDab Database) [1]

Prediction Method	Interface Success Rate (DockQ > 0.23)
DeepSCFold	Highest Reported
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline
AlphaFold3	Baseline
Reported Improvement	DeepSCFold enhances the success rate by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively.

The experimental protocol for these benchmarks involved testing on a set of multimeric targets from the CASP15 competition. For each target, complex models were generated using protein sequence databases available up to May 2022, ensuring a temporally unbiased assessment. Predictions from other methods, including AlphaFold3 (via its online server), Yang-Multimer, MULTICOM, and NBIS-AF2-multimer, were retrieved from the CASP15 official website or generated via their public servers for a fair comparison [1]. A separate evaluation was conducted on antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, which are particularly challenging due to frequently absent inter-chain co-evolutionary signals [1].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Databases

The following table details key resources and databases integral to running advanced protein complex prediction pipelines like DeepSCFold.

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Databases for Complex Prediction

Resource / Reagent	Type	Function in the Pipeline
UniRef30/90, UniProt, BFD, MGnify	Sequence Databases	Provide the raw homologous sequences for constructing initial monomeric Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) [1] [29].
ColabFold DB	Sequence Database	A curated database often used in conjunction with MMseqs2 for fast MSA construction [1].
HHblits, Jackhammer, MMseqs2	Sequence Search Tools	Software tools used to search sequence databases and generate the monomeric MSAs [1].
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Structure Database	Source of experimentally determined structures used for template-based modeling and for integrating biological information into paired MSA construction [1].
AlphaFold-Multimer	Structure Prediction Engine	The core deep learning model that generates 3D structure coordinates from the constructed paired MSAs [1] [29].
DeepUMQA-X	Quality Assessment Method	An in-house model quality assessment method used by DeepSCFold to select the top-1 predicted structure for refinement [1] [29].
CS12192	CS12192, MF:C25H23ClFN7O2, MW:507.9 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
TP0472993	TP0472993, MF:C16H20N4O2, MW:300.36 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Discussion and Future Directions

DeepSCFold demonstrates that leveraging sequence-derived structural complementarity is a powerful strategy for enhancing protein complex prediction, particularly in scenarios where traditional co-evolutionary analysis fails. Its significant performance gains on challenging antibody-antigen complexes underscore the importance of capturing intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns at the structural level [1]. This approach effectively compensates for the absence of inter-chain co-evolution, a common limitation in virus-host and antibody-antigen systems [1].

The field of multimer prediction continues to evolve rapidly, with ongoing research focusing on predicting complexes of unknown stoichiometry, large supercomplexes, and dynamic conformational ensembles [19]. Future pipelines will likely integrate the strengths of various approaches, combining the physical realism of docking methods, the power of deep learning, and insights from structural bioinformatics to not only predict static structures but also enable functional interpretation of protein-protein interactions and reconstruct underlying biological mechanisms [19]. As these tools become more accurate and accessible, they are poised to dramatically accelerate research in structural biology, systems biology, and therapeutic development.

Predicting the structures and interactions of multimers, such as antibody-antigen complexes and enzyme-substrate pairs, represents a frontier challenge in computational biology. While tools like AlphaFold2 revolutionized monomeric protein structure prediction, accurately capturing the inter-chain interactions that define functional complexes remains formidable [1]. These specialized interactions are crucial for understanding immune response, enzymatic activity, and developing novel therapeutics. This guide objectively compares the performance of cutting-edge computational tools designed for these specific prediction tasks, providing researchers with experimental data to inform their methodological selections.

Performance Comparison of Prediction Tools

The tables below summarize the key performance metrics of state-of-the-art tools for predicting antibody-antigen interactions and enzyme complex specificity, based on recent benchmark studies.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Antibody-Antigen Complex Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Approach	Key Performance Metric	Benchmark Dataset	Comparative Advantage
DeepSCFold [1]	Sequence-derived structure complementarity with deep learning	24.7% higher success rate on binding interfaces vs. AlphaFold-Multimer; 12.4% vs. AlphaFold3 [1]	CASP15 multimer targets, SAbDab antibody-antigen complexes [1]	Effectively captures conserved protein-protein interaction patterns without relying solely on co-evolution.
Graphinity [31]	Equivariant Graph Neural Network (EGNN) on complex structures	Test Pearson’s correlation up to 0.87 on experimental ΔΔG prediction [31]	AB-Bind dataset (645 mutations), SyntheticFoldXΔΔG_942723 [31]	Directly learns from atomistic graphs of wild-type and mutant complexes; robust on large synthetic data.
MVSF-AB [32]	Multi-View Sequence Feature learning	Outperforms existing sequence-based approaches on antibody-antigen affinity prediction [32]	Unobserved natural antibody-antigen affinity data, mutant strains [32]	Fuses semantic and residue features from sequences, effective without structural data.
Fingerprint-based with pLDDT [33]	Incorporates ESMFold's pLDDT as flexibility proxy	92% AUC-ROC for Ab-Ag interaction prediction; state-of-the-art paratope prediction [33]	Curated antibody-antigen dataset [33]	Uses pLDDT to model antibody flexibility, crucial for CDR loop interactions.

Table 2: Performance Comparison of Enzyme Specificity and Function Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Approach	Key Performance Metric	Benchmark Dataset	Comparative Advantage
EZSpecificity [34]	Cross-attention SE(3)-equivariant graph neural network	91.7% accuracy identifying single reactive substrate vs. 58.3% for previous model [34]	Experimental validation with 8 halogenases and 78 substrates [34]	Integrates enzyme-substrate interaction data at sequence and structural levels.
SOLVE [35]	Interpretable ensemble ML (RF, LightGBM, DT) on sequence tokens	High accuracy from enzyme vs. non-enzyme classification down to L4 substrate prediction [35]	Custom enzyme function dataset, stratified 5-fold cross-validation [35]	Uses only primary sequence; provides interpretability via Shapley analysis for functional motifs.
CAPIM [17]	Integrates P2Rank (pockets), GASS (active sites), & AutoDock Vina (docking)	Provides residue-level activity profiles and functional validation via docking [17]	Case studies on characterized and unannotated multi-chain targets [17]	Unifies pocket identification, catalytic site annotation, and docking for multimers.
BEC-Pred [36]	BERT-based model using reaction SMILES sequences	91.6% accuracy for EC number prediction, 5.5% higher than other ML methods [36]	Dataset of enzymatic reactions with SMILES substrates/products [36]	Leverages transfer learning from general chemical reactions to predict EC numbers.

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol for Benchmarking Complex Structure Prediction

The evaluation of protein complex prediction tools like DeepSCFold follows a rigorous protocol to ensure fair comparison [1].

• Dataset Curation: Benchmark sets are compiled from international competitions like CASP15 for general protein multimers and specialized databases like SAbDab for antibody-antigen complexes. Temporal filters are applied to ensure no data used for training is included in the test sets.
• MSA Construction: DeepSCFold first generates monomeric Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) from databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, BFD, MGnify). It then uses two deep learning models:
  • A pSS-score predictor ranks homologs by structural similarity to the query.
  • A pIA-score predictor estimates interaction probability between sequences from different subunit MSAs.
• Paired MSA Generation: The pIA-scores, along with biological data (species, UniProt IDs), guide the systematic concatenation of monomeric homologs into complex-focused paired MSAs.
• Structure Prediction & Selection: The paired MSAs are fed into a structure prediction engine (e.g., AlphaFold-Multimer). The top-1 model is selected by a quality assessment tool (e.g., DeepUMQA-X) and can be used as a template for a final refinement iteration [1].

Protocol for Evaluating Antibody-Antigen Affinity Prediction

Accurately predicting the change in binding affinity (ΔΔG) upon mutation is critical for antibody engineering. The protocol for tools like Graphinity involves [31]:

• Data Sourcing and Splitting: The AB-Bind dataset (645 single-point mutations from 29 complexes) is a common standard. To test generalizability, a length-matched CDR sequence identity cutoff (e.g., 90-100%) is enforced between training and test folds, preventing mutations from the same complex from appearing in both.
• Graph Representation: Wild-type and mutant antibody-antigen complex structures are converted into atomistic graphs. Nodes represent non-hydrogen atoms, and edges connect atoms within 4 Ã….
• Model Training with a Siamese EGNN: A Siamese Equivariant Graph Neural Network processes the paired (WT and mutant) graphs. This architecture learns to compare the two states and directly regress the ΔΔG value.
• Robustness Analysis: Performance is evaluated across multiple random folds and with varying sequence identity cutoffs to detect overtraining and ensure the model learns general principles of binding rather than complex-specific patterns.

Protocol for Validating Enzyme Substrate Specificity

Experimental validation of computational predictions is the ultimate test. The protocol for EZSpecificity is a prime example [34]:

• Tool Prediction: EZSpecificity is used to score the potential reactivity of a library of 78 diverse substrates against a set of 8 halogenase enzymes.
• Experimental Testing: The top-ranked enzyme-substrate pairs, along with negative controls, are selected for wet-lab experimentation. This typically involves incubating the purified enzyme with the substrate under optimal conditions.
• Product Analysis: The reaction mixtures are analyzed using techniques like liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) or nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) to detect the formation of catalytic products.
• Accuracy Calculation: The accuracy is calculated as the percentage of cases where the tool's prediction (reactive/non-reactive) matches the experimental outcome. EZSpecificity achieved 91.7% accuracy in identifying the single potential reactive substrate for each halogenase [34].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successful computational prediction relies on a suite of software tools and databases. The table below lists key "reagents" for researchers in this field.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Multimer Prediction

Reagent / Tool Name	Type	Primary Function in the Workflow
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Software	Core engine for predicting protein complex structures from sequences and MSAs.
AutoDock Vina [17]	Software	Molecular docking tool used to validate predicted binding sites and estimate binding affinity.
P2Rank [17]	Software	Machine learning-based tool for predicting ligand-binding pockets on protein structures.
GASS [17]	Software	Identifies catalytically active residues and assigns EC numbers using structural templates.
UniProt/Swiss-Prot [35]	Database	Provides expertly curated protein sequences and functional annotations for MSA construction.
SAbDab [31]	Database	The Structural Antibody Database; a key resource for antibody-antigen complex structures.
ESMFold [33]	Software	Rapid protein structure prediction tool from sequences alone; its pLDDT output can serve as a proxy for flexibility.

The landscape of predicting antibody-antigen and enzyme complexes is rapidly advancing, with specialized tools now outperforming general-purpose models. Key takeaways for researchers are:

• For antibody-antigen complexes, integrating structural complementarity (DeepSCFold) or conformational flexibility (pLDDT-based methods) addresses key limitations of MSA-only approaches [1] [33].
• For enzyme specificity, models that jointly learn from sequence, structure, and chemical reaction data (EZSpecificity, BEC-Pred) show markedly higher accuracy than their predecessors [34] [36].
• A critical challenge remains the scarcity of high-quality experimental data for training and validation, particularly for antibody affinity changes (ΔΔG) [31].

Future progress will likely hinge on generating larger and more diverse experimental datasets, further refining integrative models that combine physical principles with deep learning, and improving the prediction of dynamic interactions beyond static structures.

The prediction of protein complex structures represents a frontier in structural biology, with particular challenges arising from intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) and fuzzy complexes. Unlike structured domains, IDRs lack a fixed three-dimensional structure under physiological conditions, yet play critical roles in cellular signaling, transcriptional regulation, and dynamic protein-protein interactions [37]. Their inherent flexibility allows for binding versatility but complicates structural characterization through both experimental methods and computational prediction. The advent of artificial intelligence-based structure prediction tools has revolutionized this field, with multiple approaches now vying for dominance in accurately modeling these challenging complexes. This guide provides an objective comparison of current methodologies, focusing on their performance for IDRs and fuzzy complexes within the broader context of assessing accuracy in multimer prediction tools.

Performance Comparison of Multimer Prediction Tools

Quantitative Benchmarking Results

Comprehensive benchmarking studies reveal significant differences in performance across protein complex prediction tools, particularly for challenging targets involving IDRs.

Table 1: Overall Performance Metrics for Protein Complex Prediction Tools

Prediction Tool	High Quality Models (DockQ >0.8)	Incorrect Models (DockQ <0.23)	TM-score Improvement vs. AF-Multimer	Key Strengths
AlphaFold3	39.8%	19.2%	Reference	General molecular complexes
ColabFold (with templates)	35.2%	30.1%	-	Template utilization
ColabFold (template-free)	28.9%	32.3%	-	De novo prediction
DeepSCFold	Not reported	Not reported	+11.6%	IDR complexes, antibody-antigen
AlphaFold-Multimer	Not reported	Not reported	Reference	General protein complexes

Table 2: Specialized Performance for IDR-Containing Complexes

Complex Type	Prediction Tool	Success Rate	Key Limitations
MoRFs/Short IDRs	AlphaFold-Multimer	High (>80%)	Smaller interfaces
Extended IDRs	AlphaFold-Multimer	Moderate	Lower interface hydrophobicity
Fuzzy Complexes	AlphaFold-Multimer	Reduced	Structural heterogeneity
Antibody-Antigen	DeepSCFold	+24.7% over AF-M	Lacks co-evolution
Antibody-Antigen	AlphaFold3	+12.4% over AF-M	Limited commercial access

The benchmarking data reveals that while AlphaFold3 generates the highest proportion of high-quality models (39.8%) among general prediction tools [18], specialized approaches like DeepSCFold show remarkable improvements for specific challenging categories. DeepSCFold demonstrates an 11.6% increase in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer on CASP15 targets and a 24.7% enhancement in success rate for antibody-antigen complexes [1]. This suggests that domain-specific optimization can yield significant performance gains for particular complex types.

For IDR-containing complexes specifically, AlphaFold-Multimer shows varying success rates depending on the interaction type. It performs well on molecular recognition features (MoRFs) and short linear motifs (SLiMs) but shows reduced accuracy for more heterogeneous, fuzzy interactions [38]. This performance stratification correlates with interface properties: lower hydrophobicity and higher coil content in fuzzy complexes present greater challenges for accurate prediction.

Assessment Metrics for Model Quality

Evaluating prediction quality requires multiple complementary metrics, as no single score provides a complete picture, especially for complex interfaces.

Table 3: Key Assessment Metrics for Protein Complex Predictions

Metric	Interpretation	Optimal Application
ipTM (interface pTM)	Interface quality metric	Primary reliability indicator
pLDDT	Per-residue confidence	Local structure reliability
ipLDDT	Interface residue confidence	Binding site accuracy
PAE/iPAE	Residue-residue error	Domain orientation, flexibility
pDockQ/pDockQ2	Interface quality from contacts	Protein-protein interactions
VoroIF-GNN	Interface graph-based score	CASP EMA benchmark
DockQ	Ground truth quality measure	Experimental validation

Among these metrics, interface-specific scores generally provide more reliable assessment of complex predictions compared to global scores [18]. The ipTM and model confidence scores demonstrate the best discrimination between correct and incorrect predictions, making them particularly valuable for automated quality assessment. The recently developed C2Qscore combines multiple metrics into a weighted composite score to improve model quality assessment, especially for dimers from larger cryo-EM assemblies where multiple configurations may be possible [18].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DeepSCFold Protocol for Complex Structure Modeling

DeepSCFold employs a sophisticated pipeline that leverages structural complementarity rather than relying solely on co-evolutionary signals.

DeepSCFold Workflow for Protein Complex Prediction

The protocol begins with input protein complex sequences used to generate monomeric multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) from diverse databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [1]. Two deep learning models then process these MSAs: the first predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) to enhance ranking and selection of monomeric MSAs, while the second estimates interaction probability (pIA-score) between sequence homologs from distinct subunit MSAs [1]. These scores enable systematic construction of paired MSAs that incorporate structural complementarity information, which are then fed into AlphaFold-Multimer for complex structure prediction. The final output structure is selected through an iterative refinement process using DeepUMQA-X for model quality assessment [1].

AlphaFold-Multimer Assessment Protocol for IDRs

Rigorous assessment of AlphaFold-Multimer's performance on IDR-containing complexes requires specialized datasets and evaluation metrics.

AlphaFold-Multimer IDR Assessment Methodology

The evaluation employs multiple carefully curated datasets: IDRBind (73 high-confidence complexes with experimental disorder evidence), RgSet (105 blind-test complexes identified through radius of gyration analysis), and FuzzySet (37 complexes with structural variability from NMR) [38]. Predictions are generated using only sequence segments from PDB SEQRES records, with interface properties including size, hydrophobicity, and coil content analyzed for correlation with prediction success [38]. Key AlphaFold-Multimer scores (Predicted Aligned Error, residue-ipTM) are evaluated for their ability to distinguish between fuzzy and homogeneous binding modes, with the minD metric developed to pinpoint potential interaction sites in full-length proteins [38].

Benchmarking Protocol for Scoring Metrics

Standardized assessment of prediction quality requires controlled benchmarking across multiple tools and datasets.

The benchmarking protocol for scoring metrics employs a carefully curated set of 223 heterodimeric high-resolution structures from the Protein Data Bank [18]. Predictions are generated using three methods: ColabFold with templates (CF-T), ColabFold template-free (CF-F), and AlphaFold3 (AF3), with all ColabFold predictions performed with three recycles followed by relaxation, producing five models per target [18]. Each prediction is evaluated using multiple metrics including ipLDDT, pTM, ipTM, model confidence, iPAE, pDockQ2, and VoroIF, with DockQ scores serving as ground truth for quality assessment [18]. The metrics are compared using CAPRI criteria (high quality: DockQ >0.8, medium: 0.23-0.8, incorrect: <0.23), with interface-specific scores given priority over global scores for evaluating complex predictions [18].

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for IDR and Complex Studies

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Access Considerations
AlphaFold3	AI Prediction Tool	Molecular complex structures	Academic/non-commercial only
AlphaFold-Multimer	AI Prediction Tool	Protein multimer structures	Open source
RoseTTAFold All-Atom	AI Prediction Tool	Molecular complex structures	Non-commercial weights
DeepSCFold	Specialized Pipeline	IDR complex structures	Open source
PICKLUSTER v2.0	Analysis Toolkit	Model quality assessment	ChimeraX plug-in
C2Qscore	Assessment Metric	Combined quality score	Command-line tool
FuzDB	Database	Fuzzy complex references	Public access
IDRdecoder	Prediction Tool	IDR-drug interactions	Research use

The research landscape for IDR and complex prediction features both comprehensive platforms and specialized tools. AlphaFold3 represents the most advanced commercial-grade platform but carries usage restrictions that may limit commercial applications [39]. Open-source alternatives like OpenFold and Boltz-1 are emerging to address these limitations [39]. For IDR-specific challenges, specialized tools like IDRdecoder employ transfer learning to predict drug interaction sites and ligand types, achieving AUCs of 0.616 and 0.702 respectively despite limited training data [40]. Experimental databases like FuzDB provide essential reference data for fuzzy complexes, enabling method development and validation [38].

The accurate prediction of IDRs and fuzzy complexes remains a significant challenge in structural biology, with different tools exhibiting distinct strengths and limitations. AlphaFold3 currently leads in overall performance for general complex prediction, while specialized approaches like DeepSCFold show superior results for specific categories like antibody-antigen complexes. For IDR-containing complexes, AlphaFold-Multimer demonstrates strong performance on MoRFs and short motifs but reduced accuracy for more dynamic, fuzzy interactions. The field continues to evolve rapidly, with open-source initiatives working to overcome current accessibility limitations and specialized tools emerging to address the unique challenges of protein disorder. Researchers should select tools based on their specific complex types, considering both general performance metrics and specialized capabilities for disordered regions.

Overcoming Limitations and Optimizing Prediction Workflows

Addressing the Co-evolution Signal Shortfall in Transient Complexes

In the field of structural biology, accurately predicting the structures of multimeric protein complexes stands as a formidable challenge, particularly for transient encounters that are essential to cellular function yet evade precise characterization. These transient complexes, characterized by their short-lived, dynamic nature, frequently lack the strong co-evolutionary signals that state-of-the-art prediction tools like AlphaFold rely upon for accurate modeling [19] [41]. This co-evolution signal shortfall represents a critical bottleneck in achieving comprehensive understanding of protein interaction networks. Within the broader context of assessing accuracy in multimer prediction tools research, this guide objectively compares how current computational methods address this fundamental limitation, providing researchers and drug development professionals with performance data and methodological insights necessary for selecting appropriate tools for their investigations into dynamic protein interactions.

The core issue stems from the biological nature of transient complexes. Unlike stable complexes where interacting proteins co-evolve to maintain complementary interfaces, transient complexes involve interactions that may not generate sufficient evolutionary coupling signals for deep learning models to detect [42] [43]. This challenge is particularly acute for certain biologically critical interaction types, including virus-host interactions and antibody-antigen complexes, where the evolutionary histories of the interacting partners are largely decoupled [1]. As recent research highlights, "accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the structures of protein complexes remains a formidable challenge" precisely because these transient and decoupled interactions dominate the unsolved territory in protein interactome mapping [1].

Understanding the Co-evolution Shortfall in Transient Complexes

The Biophysical Nature of Transient Complexes

Transient encounter complexes exist as short-lived intermediates along the association pathway between unbound proteins and their specific native complexes. Experimental studies using paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE) have unequivocally demonstrated their existence in solution, revealing that these species populate distinct, non-specific binding modes with relative populations under approximately 10% [42]. These complexes are not merely random encounters but exhibit defined structural characteristics, primarily differing from specific complexes in interface size rather than amino acid composition [42]. The biological function of these transient species extends beyond merely being intermediates; they enhance binding kinetics by increasing the interaction cross-section and reducing the conformational space that must be sampled during diffusional encounters, ultimately accelerating successful binding events [42].

From a structural perspective, the transient complex is located at the outer boundary of the bound-state energy well, characterized by near-native separation and relative orientation between subunits but lacking most short-range native interactions that define the stable complex [43]. This positioning creates a fundamental prediction challenge: the interaction interfaces are not optimized for complementarity in the same way as stable complexes, resulting in weaker evolutionary constraints and consequently diminished co-evolutionary signals.

Limitations of Co-evolution Based Prediction Methods

AlphaFold2 and its derivatives have revolutionized protein structure prediction by leveraging deep learning models trained on evolutionary couplings derived from multiple sequence alignments (MSAs). These methods excel when sufficient co-evolutionary signals exist between interacting partners [41] [44]. However, their performance degrades significantly for transient complexes and other interaction types where such signals are absent or weak. The fundamental assumption underlying these methods—that residue-residue contacts can be inferred from evolutionary couplings—fails when proteins interact without sustained evolutionary pressure to maintain complementary interfaces.

This limitation manifests particularly in challenging cases such as antibody-antigen interactions and virus-host protein complexes, where the interacting partners do not share evolutionary history [1]. For standard AlphaFold-Multimer, this co-evolution shortfall translates to substantially reduced accuracy when predicting such complexes. As one benchmark study noted, the difficulty in identifying orthologs between host and pathogenic proteins "due to the absence of species overlap" creates an inherent barrier to generating meaningful paired MSAs that can reliably capture inter-chain interactions [1].

Computational Strategies to Overcome the Co-evolution Shortfall

Advanced Paired MSA Construction with Structural Complementarity

DeepSCFold represents a strategic innovation that directly addresses the co-evolution shortfall by incorporating structural complementarity metrics alongside traditional sequence-based approaches. Rather than relying solely on co-evolutionary signals, this method uses deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) and interaction probability (pIA-score) directly from sequence information [1]. These predicted scores then guide the construction of paired multiple sequence alignments (pMSAs) that more accurately reflect potential interaction modes, even in the absence of strong co-evolutionary coupling.

The DeepSCFold protocol systematically integrates multiple biological information sources, including species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, and experimentally determined complexes from the PDB, to construct paired MSAs with enhanced biological relevance [1]. This approach effectively compensates for missing co-evolutionary information by leveraging the evolutionary conservation of protein-protein interaction interfaces at the structural level. As the developers note, "extensive experimental evidence suggests that the repertoire of protein interaction modes in nature is remarkably limited, with similar structural binding patterns observed across diverse protein-protein interactions" [1]. This structural conservation provides a more reliable signal than sequence co-evolution for predicting challenging transient complexes.

Energy Landscape Mapping and Transient Complex Characterization

Alternative approaches directly model the interaction energy landscape to identify transient complex configurations without relying exclusively on co-evolutionary signals. These methods, exemplified by the TransComp algorithm, map the energy surface between interacting proteins to locate the transient complex at the outer boundary of the native-complex energy well [43]. By characterizing the binding funnel width and electrostatic interaction energy of these transient species, these methods can predict binding affinities and association rates even for complexes with weak co-evolutionary signals.

Physical simulation methods, including replica exchange Monte Carlo (REMC) simulations using coarse-grained energy functions, have demonstrated capability to recover both specific and nonspecific transient complexes that account for experimental paramagnetic relaxation enhancement data [42]. These approaches sample the equilibrium ensemble of protein-protein interactions, capturing not only the native complex but also alternative binding modes that correspond to transient encounter complexes. The success of these methods in recapitulating experimental PRE measurements for weakly interacting protein complexes highlights their potential for addressing cases where co-evolutionary approaches fail [42].

AlphaFold Modifications and Optimization Strategies

Modifications to the standard AlphaFold2 protocol have also shown promise in mitigating the co-evolution shortfall. Research demonstrates that optimizing multiple sequence alignment construction specifically for protein-protein interactions significantly improves performance on complexes with weak evolutionary couplings [44]. Combining traditional AF2 MSAs with specially paired MSAs increased the success rate for acceptable models from 45.0% to 57.8% in benchmark tests, with further improvements to 61.7% achieved through multiple initializations with random seeds and model ranking using predicted DockQ scores [44].

The development of AlphaFold-Multimer specifically addressed complex prediction by incorporating interspecies pairing and specialized MSA processing, achieving a 72.2% success rate on benchmark data [44]. However, it's important to note that this performance was achieved on data similar to its training set, potentially overstating its effectiveness on novel transient complexes with genuine co-evolution shortfalls.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Multimer Prediction Methods

Method	Approach	Success Rate	Key Innovation	Limitations
DeepSCFold	Structure complementarity + pMSA	11.6% improvement over AF-Multimer (TM-score)	pSS-score and pIA-score for MSA pairing	Limited testing on very large complexes
AlphaFold-Multimer	Modified AF2 for multimers	72.2% (DockQ ≥0.23)	Interspecies pairing, specialized MSA processing	Performance may drop on novel complexes
Optimized AF2	AF2 with paired MSAs	61.7% (DockQ ≥0.23)	Combination of AF2 and paired MSAs	Requires careful MSA curation
TransComp	Energy landscape mapping	N/A (different metrics)	Identifies transient complex energetics	Not a comprehensive structure prediction tool
REMC Simulations	Physical simulation	Qualitatively matches PRE data	Captures equilibrium ensemble	Computationally intensive, coarse-grained

Comparative Performance Analysis

Benchmarking on Standardized Datasets

Rigorous benchmarking on CASP15 competition data reveals significant performance differences between methods addressing the co-evolution shortfall. DeepSCFold demonstrates an 11.6% improvement in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and a 10.3% improvement over AlphaFold3, indicating substantially better capture of complex topology in challenging cases [1]. More dramatically, when applied to antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database—a particularly challenging class due to minimal co-evolution—DeepSCFold enhanced the prediction success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [1].

These improvements highlight the particular value of structure-complementarity approaches for complexes with genuinely absent co-evolutionary signals. The performance gap is most pronounced for the antibody-antigen category, where conventional co-evolution based methods struggle most significantly. This pattern reinforces the fundamental thesis that transient complexes and other interactions with weak evolutionary coupling require alternative approaches beyond standard MSA-based deep learning.

Assessment Metrics and Quality Indicators

Different metrics provide insights into various aspects of prediction quality. The DockQ score specifically evaluates interface accuracy, with values ≥0.23 generally indicating acceptable models [44]. The TM-score assesses overall topological similarity, with higher values indicating better global fold preservation. For transient complexes, where interface accuracy is paramount, DockQ provides particularly valuable information.

Research into quality assessment metrics has revealed that the average pLDDT of the entire complex performs poorly (AUC=0.66) at distinguishing correct from incorrect complex models, while interface-focused metrics like the number of interface residues (AUC=0.91) and interface contacts (AUC=0.92) show much better discriminatory power [44]. This finding underscores the importance of specialized assessment for complex predictions, particularly for transient encounters where global structure may be preserved while specific interactions are misrepresented.

Table 2: Key Assessment Metrics for Protein Complex Prediction

Metric	Focus	Interpretation	Strength	Weakness
DockQ	Interface accuracy	≥0.23 = acceptable, ≥0.80 = high quality	Specifically designed for complexes	Less sensitive to global structure
TM-score	Global topology	0-1 scale, >0.5 = correct fold	Robust to local variations	Less sensitive to interface details
pLDDT	Local confidence	0-100 scale, >90 = high confidence	Per-residue accuracy estimate	Poor discriminator for complex validity
Interface Contacts	Interface size	Absolute count of interacting residues	Simple interpretability	Does not assess contact quality
pDockQ	Predicted interface quality	Derived from interface pLDDT and contacts	Effective model selection	Training data dependent

Experimental Protocols for Method Evaluation

DeepSCFold Protocol for Complex Structure Prediction

The DeepSCFold methodology employs a multi-stage protocol for protein complex structure prediction:

• Monomeric MSA Generation: Initial multiple sequence alignments are generated for individual subunits from multiple sequence databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [1].

• Structural Similarity Assessment: A deep learning model predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) between query sequences and their homologs in monomeric MSAs, using this metric to enhance ranking and selection of monomeric MSAs [1].

• Interaction Probability Prediction: A separate deep learning model predicts interaction probabilities (pIA-scores) for potential pairs of sequence homologs from distinct subunit MSAs [1].

• Paired MSA Construction: Monomeric homologs are systematically concatenated using interaction probabilities, with additional integration of multi-source biological information including species annotations and experimentally determined complexes [1].

• Complex Structure Prediction: The series of paired MSAs are used with AlphaFold-Multimer for structure prediction, with top model selection via quality assessment method DeepUMQA-X, followed by template-based refinement [1].

This protocol emphasizes structural complementarity over purely sequence-based co-evolution, directly addressing the shortfall in transient complex prediction.

Transient Complex Identification via Energy Landscape Mapping

The TransComp method identifies transient complexes through characterization of the interaction energy surface:

• Conformational Sampling: Systematic sampling in the 6-dimensional space of relative translation and rotation between rigid subunits, covering the native-complex basin and surrounding region [43].

• Contact Analysis: For each clash-free pose, calculation of contacts (Nc) between interaction locus atoms, with differentiation between native and non-native contacts [43].

• Transition Identification: Analysis of the standard deviation of rotational angle (σχ) as a function of contact number (Nc) to identify the transition between native-complex basin and far region [43].

• Transient Complex Definition: Identification of poses at the midpoint (Nc*) of the transition between high-contact/low-σχ and low-contact/high-σχ states as constituting the transient complex [43].

• Electrostatic Characterization: Calculation of electrostatic interaction energies for transient complex ensembles using Poisson-Boltzmann equation or Debye-Hückel approximation [43].

This physical approach provides an alternative to deep learning methods, particularly valuable when evolutionary signals are insufficient.

Diagram 1: DeepSCFold workflow for predicting complexes with weak co-evolution signals. The method leverages structural complementarity predictions to construct enhanced paired multiple sequence alignments.

Table 3: Key Research Resources for Transient Complex Studies

Resource	Type	Function	Access
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Protein complex structure prediction	GitHub/Colab
DeepSCFold	Software	Structure complementarity-based prediction	Contact authors
TransComp	Web Server	Transient complex identification	pipe.sc.fsu.edu/transcomp/
ColabFold	Software	Rapid AF2 implementation with MMSeqs2	GitHub/Colab
PDB	Database	Experimental structures for validation	rcsb.org
SAbDab	Database	Antibody-antigen complexes	opig.stats.ox.ac.uk/webapps/sabdab
UniProt	Database	Protein sequences and annotations	uniprot.org
PRE Data	Experimental	Detection of transient species	NMR methodology

The co-evolution signal shortfall in transient complex prediction remains a significant challenge in structural bioinformatics, but multiple strategies now offer promising pathways forward. Methods incorporating structural complementarity principles, like DeepSCFold, demonstrate substantial improvements over purely co-evolution based approaches for the most challenging cases including antibody-antigen complexes [1]. Physical modeling approaches that map energy landscapes and identify transient complex configurations provide complementary insights, particularly for understanding binding kinetics and affinity determinants [42] [43].

Future research directions likely include more sophisticated integration of physical modeling with deep learning, expanded incorporation of experimental constraints from techniques like PRE, and development of specialized methods for particular transient complex categories. As the field progresses, benchmarking on standardized datasets of genuine transient complexes—rather than stable complexes with artificially removed evolutionary signals—will be essential for proper validation. For researchers and drug development professionals, selection of prediction tools must be guided by the specific nature of the complexes under investigation, with structure-complementarity methods preferred for cases with genuinely absent co-evolutionary signals and optimized AlphaFold approaches sufficient for cases with moderate co-evolution.

Strategies for Improving MSA Quality and Paired MSA Construction

In the rapidly evolving field of structural biology, assessing the accuracy of multimer prediction tools has become a critical research focus. The quality of multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), particularly paired MSAs, significantly influences the performance of these prediction algorithms. Where traditional methods rely primarily on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals, recent advances leverage deep learning to extract structural complementarity information, substantially improving prediction accuracy for challenging protein complexes. This guide objectively compares contemporary strategies for enhancing MSA quality and paired MSA construction, examining their experimental performance and methodological approaches.

Comparative Analysis of MSA Enhancement Strategies

Table 1: Overview of MSA Enhancement Methods and Performance

Method	Core Approach	Key Innovation	Reported Performance Improvement	Best Application Context
DeepSCFold	Sequence-based structural similarity & interaction probability prediction	Uses pSS-score and pIA-score to construct paired MSAs	11.6% and 10.3% TM-score improvement over AF-Multimer and AF3 on CASP15; 24.7% and 12.4% success rate improvement for antibody-antigen complexes [45]	Complexes lacking clear co-evolutionary signals (e.g., antibody-antigen, virus-host)
AlphaFold-Multimer	Paired alignments based on species matching	Extension of AlphaFold2 specifically for multimers	Baseline performance; ~40-60% success rate across oligomeric states [46]	General multimer prediction with available co-evolutionary signals
MULTICOM3	Diverse paired MSAs from multiple protein-protein interaction sources	Integrates potential interactions from various databases	Demonstrated superior performance in CASP15 [45]	When multiple interaction data sources are available
ESMPair	MSA ranking using ESM-MSA-1b with species integration	Leverages protein language models for MSA construction	Not explicitly quantified in results [45]	General multimer prediction
DiffPALM	MSA transformer for amino acid probabilities	Creates permutation matrix to pair protein sequences	Not explicitly quantified in results [45]	General multimer prediction

Table 2: Quantitative Benchmarking on Standard Datasets

Method	CASP15 Targets (TM-score improvement)	Antibody-Antigen Complexes (Success Rate Improvement)	Key Evaluation Metrics
DeepSCFold	+11.6% vs. AF-Multimer; +10.3% vs. AF3 [45]	+24.7% vs. AF-Multimer; +12.4% vs. AF3 [45]	TM-score, Interface Accuracy (DockQ)
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline [45]	Baseline [45]	TM-score, DockQ, pDockQ2 [46]
AF3 (AlphaFold3)	Reference for comparison [45]	Reference for comparison [45]	TM-score, Interface Accuracy
Standard AF-Multimer (NBIS-AF2-standard)	Lower performance in CASP15 [45]	Not specifically reported	TM-score, Interface Accuracy

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DeepSCFold Protocol

DeepSCFold employs a comprehensive workflow for constructing high-quality paired MSAs through structural complementarity assessment [45] [29]:

• Monomeric MSA Generation: Initial MSAs are generated for individual protein chains from multiple sequence databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [45].

• Structural Similarity Prediction: A deep learning model predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) between input sequences and their corresponding homologs in monomeric MSAs, using this as a complementary metric to traditional sequence similarity for ranking and selecting monomeric MSAs [45].

• Interaction Probability Assessment: A second deep learning model predicts interaction probabilities (pIA-scores) for potential pairs of sequence homologs derived from distinct subunit MSAs [45].

• Biological Information Integration: Species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, and experimentally determined protein complexes from the PDB are incorporated to construct additional biologically relevant paired MSAs [45].

• Structure Prediction and Refinement: The series of constructed paired MSAs are used with AlphaFold-Multimer for complex structure prediction, with the top-1 model selected using an in-house quality assessment method (DeepUMQA-X) and refined through an additional iteration [45].

DeepSCFold Workflow for Paired MSA Construction

Standard AlphaFold-Multimer Protocol

The standard AlphaFold-Multimer approach provides a baseline for comparison [46]:

• MSA Construction: MSAs are generated using default parameters with HHblits and Jackhmmer against standard sequence databases [46].

• Template Processing: Structural templates are identified and processed, though this step may be disabled in some implementations [46].

• Model Inference: AlphaFold-Multimer (v2.2.0) is run with default parameters and 3 recycling steps [46].

• Model Selection: The top-ranked model by predicted confidence metrics is selected for analysis [46].

Evaluation Methodologies

Comprehensive benchmarking employs standardized protocols [46]:

• Dataset Preparation: Homology-reduced datasets independent from training sets are created, with structures classified as homomers or heteromers and similarity reduction applied using MMseqs2 with ≥30% sequence identity threshold [46].

• Quality Assessment: Models are evaluated against experimental structures using:

  • TM-score/MM-score: Measures global fold similarity [46]
  • DockQ: Assesses interface quality with >0.23 indicating acceptable quality by CAPRI criteria [46]
  • pDockQ2: Novel score estimating interface quality without reference structure [46]

• Statistical Analysis: Success rates are calculated across different oligomeric states (dimers to hexamers) with careful attention to stoichiometry consistency [46].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Computational Resources

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Primary Function	Access Information
Sequence Databases	UniRef30/90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, ColabFold DB [45]	Provide evolutionary information for MSA construction	Publicly available with some requiring specific access procedures
Structure Databases	Protein Data Bank (PDB) [45] [46]	Source of experimental structures for training and validation	Publicly accessible
Benchmark Datasets	CASP15 Multimer Targets, SAbDab Antibody-Antigen Complexes [45]	Standardized datasets for method evaluation	Available through respective organizations
Software Tools	AlphaFold-Multimer, DeepSCFold, MMalign, FoldSeek [45] [46]	Core algorithms for structure prediction and evaluation	Varied licensing (some open source, some restricted)
Evaluation Metrics	TM-score, DockQ, pDockQ2, MM-score [46]	Quantify prediction accuracy at global and interface levels	Implementation varies by tool

Critical Analysis of Methodological Differences

The fundamental distinction between approaches lies in their treatment of evolutionary information. Traditional methods like standard AlphaFold-Multimer rely on sequence co-evolution, while advanced methods like DeepSCFold incorporate structural complementarity predictions, offering particular advantages for complexes with weak co-evolutionary signals [45].

DeepSCFold's innovation centers on using sequence-based deep learning to predict structural similarity and interaction probability, effectively capturing conserved protein-protein interaction patterns that may not manifest clearly at the sequence level [45]. This approach proves particularly valuable for challenging cases like antibody-antigen complexes, where traditional co-evolutionary analysis struggles due to the absence of species overlap and different evolutionary pressures [45].

Methodological Approach Comparison

Performance Considerations and Applications

When selecting a strategy for paired MSA construction, researchers should consider several performance factors. For standard protein complexes with clear evolutionary relationships, traditional AlphaFold-Multimer approaches provide solid performance with less computational overhead [46]. However, for specialized applications like antibody-antigen complexes or cases with limited co-evolutionary signals, DeepSCFold's structural complementarity approach demonstrates marked improvements [45].

Evaluation metrics also play a crucial role in method comparison. While TM-score provides a global assessment of structural accuracy, interface-specific metrics like DockQ and pDockQ2 offer more nuanced insights into binding interface prediction quality [46]. The development of pDockQ2 specifically addresses the need for reliable quality estimation in the absence of reference structures, enabling more effective screening of predicted complexes [46].

The construction of high-quality paired MSAs remains a critical factor in accurate protein complex structure prediction. While traditional co-evolution-based methods provide a solid foundation, emerging approaches that incorporate structural complementarity information demonstrate significant performance improvements, particularly for challenging targets. DeepSCFold represents a substantial advance in this direction, showing enhanced capability for complexes that traditionally elude accurate prediction. As the field progresses, the integration of diverse information sources—sequence, structure, and biological context—will likely continue to drive improvements in multimer prediction accuracy, ultimately expanding our understanding of cellular machinery at molecular resolution.

The accurate prediction of multimeric protein complex structures is a cornerstone of modern structural biology, with profound implications for understanding cellular function and advancing therapeutic drug development. While revolutionary tools like AlphaFold2 have dramatically improved the prediction of single-chain protein structures, accurately modeling the quaternary structures of complexes remains a formidable challenge [1]. This challenge is most acute for heterogeneous and dynamic complexes, such as antibody-antigen pairs or transient signalosomes, where traditional methods relying on sequence co-evolution often fail due to a lack of conserved inter-chain signals [1]. This guide provides an objective comparison of the performance of contemporary multimer prediction tools, with a specific focus on their accuracy and limitations when confronted with these difficult targets. The analysis is framed within the broader thesis that assessing prediction accuracy requires specialized benchmarks that reflect the biological complexity and heterogeneity of real-world protein interactions.

Performance Comparison of Multimer Prediction Tools

Benchmarking on standardized datasets reveals significant performance variations between state-of-the-art multimer prediction methods. The following table summarizes quantitative performance data from independent evaluations on the CASP15 multimer targets and antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database.

Table 1: Performance Comparison on CASP15 Multimer Targets

Prediction Method	TM-score Improvement	Key Strengths	Notable Limitations
DeepSCFold	Baseline (11.6% vs AF-M, 10.3% vs AF3)	Excels in targets with low co-evolution; uses structural complementarity [1]	Methodologically complex, requiring multiple deep learning models and MSA processing steps
AlphaFold-Multimer	-	Strong performance on complexes with clear co-evolutionary signals [1]	Lower accuracy on targets like antibody-antigen complexes; relies heavily on paired MSAs [1]
AlphaFold3	-	Integrated platform for biomolecular complexes	Success rate on antibody-antigen interfaces is 12.4% lower than DeepSCFold [1]
Yang-Multimer	Retrieved for CASP15 comparison [1]	Extensive sampling strategies [1]	Performance details not specified in provided results

Table 2: Performance on Antibody-Antigen Complexes (SAbDab Database)

Prediction Method	Success Rate on Binding Interfaces	Applicability to Heterogeneous Complexes
DeepSCFold	Baseline (24.7% higher than AF-M, 12.4% higher than AF3) [1]	High; designed for systems lacking strong co-evolution, such as virus-host interactions [1]
AlphaFold-Multimer	-	Limited by difficulty in identifying orthologs between interacting species [1]
AlphaFold3	-	Likely faces similar challenges as AlphaFold-Multimer for non-co-evolving pairs

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

The comparative data presented in this guide are derived from rigorous, independent benchmark studies. The following section details the experimental protocols used to generate the performance metrics.

Benchmarking Protocol

The foundational methodology for evaluating prediction accuracy involves blind tests on curated datasets with known experimental structures, such as those from CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction) experiments.

1. Target Selection and Temporal Shielding

• Complex Targets: Evaluations use multimers from CASP15 and antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database [1].
• Date-specific Data: To ensure a temporally unbiased assessment, predictions are generated using protein sequence databases available only up to a specific cut-off date (e.g., May 2022 for CASP15 targets), preventing tools from having prior knowledge of the solved structures [1].

2. Structure Prediction and Generation

• Each competing method (e.g., DeepSCFold, AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3) is used to generate 3D structural models for each target complex based solely on its amino acid sequence.
• For DeepSCFold, this involves a multi-stage protocol:
  • Input: Protein complex sequences.
  • Step 1: Generate monomeric Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, BFD, MGnify, etc.) [1].
  • Step 2: Rank and select monomeric homologs using a predicted protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) from a deep learning model.
  • Step 3: Predict interaction probabilities (pIA-score) between sequence homologs from distinct subunits.
  • Step 4: Construct deep paired MSAs by concatenating monomeric homologs based on their pIA-scores and other biological information (species, PDB complexes).
  • Step 5: Perform complex structure prediction using AlphaFold-Multimer with the constructed paired MSAs.
  • Step 6: Select the top-1 model using an in-house quality assessment method (DeepUMQA-X) and use it as an input template for a final iteration of AlphaFold-Multimer to produce the output structure [1].

3. Accuracy Assessment and Metrics

• TM-score: A metric for measuring the structural similarity between the predicted model and the experimental reference structure. A higher TM-score indicates better accuracy, with a value above 0.5 indicating a generally correct topology [1].
• Interface Prediction Success Rate: For antibody-antigen complexes, this measures the accuracy of predicting the binding interface residues correctly [1].

Workflow and Conceptual Framework

The following diagram illustrates the core experimental workflow of the DeepSCFold protocol, which highlights the importance of moving beyond pure sequence-based pairing.

DeepSCFold Experimental Workflow

The next diagram conceptualizes why traditional methods fail with heterogeneous complexes and how a structure-aware approach addresses this.

Conceptual View of Prediction Failure and Solution

Successful multimer prediction and validation relies on a suite of computational tools and data resources. The following table details key solutions used in the field.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Multimer Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Primary Function in Research	Relevance to Heterogeneous Complexes
UniRef30/90 [1]	Sequence Database	Provides non-redundant protein sequences for constructing deep Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs), the foundation for co-evolutionary analysis.	Critical for generating initial monomeric MSAs, even when inter-chain co-evolution is weak.
BFD / MGnify [1]	Metagenomic Database	Large-scale metagenomic sequence databases used to find more diverse and distant homologs, enriching MSA depth.	Helps in finding rare homologs that may inform structural features in the absence of strong co-evolution.
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Structure Database	Repository of experimentally solved protein structures. Used for template-based modeling and for validating computational predictions.	Source of known complex structures for benchmarking and for integrating experimental data into predictions.
SAbDab [1]	Specialized Database	The Structural Antibody Database, a curated resource of antibody structures.	Essential benchmark for testing predictions on challenging antibody-antigen complexes.
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Prediction Software	An extension of AlphaFold2 specifically designed for predicting structures of protein multimers.	The core prediction engine used by several advanced pipelines, including DeepSCFold.
DeepSCFold Models (pSS, pIA)	Deep Learning Model	Predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS) and interaction probability (pIA) directly from sequence.	Key differentiator for predicting complexes where traditional co-evolutionary signals fail.

The accurate prediction of protein multimer structures is a cornerstone of modern structural biology, with profound implications for understanding cellular processes and accelerating drug discovery. While revolutionary tools like AlphaFold2 have democratized monomeric structure prediction, determining the quaternary structures of complexes remains a formidable challenge, necessitating sophisticated workflow optimization [1]. This comparison guide objectively assesses the performance of two contemporary computational pipelines, DeepSCFold and CAPIM, which offer distinct solutions for optimizing multimer analysis workflows. DeepSCFold focuses on enhancing structure prediction accuracy through deep learning-derived structural complementarity, whereas CAPIM provides an integrated workflow for catalytic activity prediction and analysis within multimer complexes [1] [17]. By evaluating their experimental performance, methodological protocols, and specialized toolkits, this guide provides researchers with a clear framework for selecting the appropriate tool based on specific research objectives, whether for de novo complex modeling or functional annotation of enzymatic multimers.

Performance Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Benchmarking against standard datasets is crucial for assessing the real-world performance of predictive tools. The following tables summarize the key quantitative results for DeepSCFold and CAPIM, highlighting their respective strengths.

Table 1: Performance Benchmarking of DeepSCFold on Standard Datasets

Benchmark Dataset	Comparison Tools	Key Performance Metric	Results
CASP15 Multimer Targets [1]	AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3	TM-score Improvement	11.6% higher than AlphaFold-Multimer; 10.3% higher than AlphaFold3
SAbDab Antibody-Antigen Complexes [1]	AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3	Success Rate for Binding Interface Prediction	24.7% higher than AlphaFold-Multimer; 12.4% higher than AlphaFold3

Table 2: Functional Analysis Capabilities of CAPIM and DeepSCFold

Feature	CAPIM Pipeline [17]	DeepSCFold Pipeline [1]
Primary Function	Catalytic activity & site prediction, plus docking	Protein complex structure modeling
EC Number Assignment	Yes, via GASS component	Not its primary focus
Binding Pocket Prediction	Yes, via P2Rank component	Implicit in structure prediction
Residue-Level Annotation	Yes, connects sites to activity	No
Substrate Docking	Yes, via AutoDock Vina	No
Multimer Support	Unlimited number of chains	Implied for complex prediction

Experimental Protocols for Workflow Evaluation

To ensure reproducibility and provide a clear basis for the performance data cited above, this section details the standard experimental methodologies for the key workflows.

DeepSCFold Protocol for Complex Structure Modeling

DeepSCFold's protocol is designed to leverage sequence information for high-accuracy complex structure prediction [1].

• Input and MSA Generation: The process begins with the input protein sequences of the complex subunits. DeepSCFold first generates monomeric Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) for each subunit by querying multiple sequence databases (e.g., UniRef30, UniRef90, BFD, MGnify).
• Sequence-Based Structure and Interaction Prediction: A key differentiator of the workflow is the use of two custom deep learning models:
  • The pSS-score model predicts protein-protein structural similarity from sequence, helping to rank and select high-quality homologs within the monomeric MSAs.
  • The pIA-score model predicts the interaction probability between sequence homologs from different subunit MSAs.
• Paired MSA (pMSA) Construction: The pSS-scores and pIA-scores are used to systematically construct deep paired MSAs. This step may also integrate multi-source biological information like species annotation and known complexes from the PDB to enhance biological relevance.
• Complex Structure Prediction and Selection: The series of constructed pMSAs are fed into AlphaFold-Multimer to generate complex structure models. The top-ranked model is selected using an in-house quality assessment method, DeepUMQA-X.
• Iterative Refinement (Optional): The selected top model can be used as an input template for a final iteration of AlphaFold-Multimer to generate the ultimate output structure.

CAPIM Protocol for Catalytic Site Analysis

CAPIM integrates several tools into a unified pipeline for predicting and validating catalytic functions in proteins, including multimers [17].

• Input: The workflow starts with a protein structure file (e.g., in PDB format), which can comprise any number of peptide chains.
• Binding Pocket Prediction: The P2Rank algorithm is first used to identify potential ligand-binding pockets on the enzyme structure. It uses a machine learning (Random Forest) classifier trained on physicochemical and geometric features to predict "ligandability" at points on the solvent-accessible surface.
• Active Site Identification and EC Number Annotation: The GASS (Genetic Active Site Search) tool is run concurrently. GASS uses genetic algorithms to search for active site structural templates, identifying catalytically active residues and annotating them with Enzyme Commission (EC) numbers.
• Result Integration: CAPIM merges the outputs of P2Rank and GASS. This creates a residue-level activity profile, linking predicted binding pockets from P2Rank with functional EC number annotations from GASS.
• Functional Validation via Docking: The predicted catalytic pockets can be functionally validated using AutoDock Vina. Users can provide a custom substrate ligand, and Vina will perform molecular docking simulations into the predicted pockets (using the P2Rank pocket as a search space) to assess binding affinity and pose, providing quantitative validation.

Workflow and Signaling Pathway Visualization

The optimized workflows for multimer analysis, as described in the experimental protocols, are visualized below. These diagrams clarify the logical relationships and data flow within each pipeline.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details the key software components and their functions that form the core of the optimized workflows discussed in this guide. These can be considered essential "research reagents" for computational scientists in this field.

Table 3: Essential Software Tools for Multimer Workflows

Tool Name	Type/Category	Primary Function in Workflow	Key Application
AlphaFold-Multimer [1]	Structure Prediction Engine	Models 3D structures of protein complexes from sequence and MSA data.	Core prediction engine in DeepSCFold for generating quaternary structures.
P2Rank [17]	Binding Site Predictor	Machine learning-based identification of ligand-binding pockets on protein structures.	Used in CAPIM to provide the spatial location of potential functional sites.
GASS (Genetic Active Site Search) [17]	Functional Annotator	Identifies catalytically active residues and assigns EC numbers using structural templates.	Used in CAPIM to provide functional annotation (EC numbers) to predicted sites.
AutoDock Vina [17]	Molecular Docking Tool	Predicts binding poses and affinities of small molecule ligands to protein receptors.	Used in CAPIM for functional validation of predicted active sites via substrate docking.
DeepEC/CLEAN [17]	EC Number Predictor	Predicts enzymatic activities (EC numbers) directly from protein sequence.	Complementary tools mentioned for high-throughput annotation, usable prior to CAPIM analysis.

The optimization of workflows for protein multimer analysis requires a careful balance between structural modeling accuracy and functional insight. Based on the comparative data and protocols presented in this guide, DeepSCFold establishes itself as the current state-of-the-art for de novo protein complex structure prediction, demonstrating significant quantitative improvements over other leading methods like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 in standardized benchmarks [1]. Its sequence-derived structural complementarity approach is particularly powerful for complexes with weak co-evolutionary signals. Conversely, the CAPIM pipeline offers a uniquely integrated solution for researchers whose primary goal is the functional characterization of multimers, especially enzymes, by seamlessly connecting residue-level structural features with catalytic activity annotation and validation [17]. The choice between these optimized workflows is not one of superiority but of objective. For predicting the precise 3D assembly of a complex, DeepSCFold's methodology is optimal. For elucidating "what" reaction a multimer catalyzes and "where" it occurs, CAPIM's toolkit provides a more direct and comprehensive workflow. As the field advances, the integration of such highly specialized and optimized pipelines will be instrumental in unlocking the secrets of cellular machinery and accelerating therapeutic development.

Independent Benchmarks and Head-to-Head Tool Comparisons

Predicting the three-dimensional structure of multimeric protein complexes, known as quaternary structure modeling, represents a significantly greater challenge than predicting single-chain protein monomers. This complexity arises from the need to accurately model both intra-chain residue interactions and, crucially, the inter-chain interactions that define the complex's binding interfaces [47] [1]. Despite the revolutionary breakthrough of AlphaFold2 in monomeric structure prediction, accurately capturing these inter-chain interaction signals remains a formidable challenge for computational structural biology [1]. The Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments provide the gold-standard for objective, blind testing of protein structure modeling methods. CASP15, conducted in 2022, demonstrated enormous progress in modeling multimolecular protein complexes, with new methods achieving nearly double the accuracy of CASP14 participants in terms of Interface Contact Score (ICS) [48]. This guide provides a comprehensive comparison of the performance of leading protein complex structure prediction methods as benchmarked in the CASP15 experiment.

CASP15 Assembly Assessment Framework

Experimental Design and Evaluation Metrics

CASP15 operated as a community-wide blind prediction experiment from May through August 2022, during which sequences of protein structures soon to be experimentally determined were released to participants. Nearly 100 research groups worldwide submitted more than 53,000 models for evaluation across various prediction categories [49]. The assembly category specifically assessed the ability of methods to correctly model domain-domain, subunit-subunit, and protein-protein interactions, with evaluation performed in close collaboration with CAPRI (Critical Assessment of Predicted Interactions) partners [49].

The official CASP15 assessment for assembly predictors employed a composite ranking score derived from multiple complementary metrics:

• Interface Contact Score (ICS): Measures the accuracy of residue-residue contacts at the interface between chains.
• Interface Patch Score (IPS): Evaluates the spatial interface characteristics.
• TM-score: Calculated using US-align to assess overall structural similarity.
• Oligomeric lDDT (lDDToligo): Measures the local distance difference test for oligomeric complexes.

The final ranking score for each prediction was calculated as the average of Z-scores for these four metrics: (ZICS + ZIPS + ZTM-score + ZlDDToligo)/4. The sum of all positive Z-scores across CASP15 targets determined each predictor's total score and final ranking [47].

CASP15 Target Difficulty Classification

Targets in CASP15 were categorized by difficulty to enable nuanced analysis of method performance:

• TBM (Template-Based Modeling): Targets with identifiable homologous templates in structure databases.
• TBM-easy/TBM-hard: Subclassification based on template identification difficulty.
• FM (Free Modeling): Targets with no identifiable homology to known structures.
• FM/TBM: Mixed targets containing both free modeling and template-based regions [50].

Performance Comparison of Leading Methods

The CASP15 competition revealed substantial differences in performance between various protein complex prediction approaches, with several methods significantly outperforming the standard AlphaFold-Multimer implementation.

Table 1: Official CASP15 Server Predictor Rankings and Accuracy (Top 5)

Server Predictor	Overall Rank	Sum of Z Scores (>0.0)	Average TM-score (41 Multimers)	Avg TM-score (14 TBM Multimers)	Avg TM-score (27 FM/FM-TBM Multimers)
Yang-Multimer	1	24.69	0.7138	0.8235	0.6569
Manifold-E	2	18.86	0.7665	0.8211	0.7382
MULTICOM_qa	3	18.35	0.7565	0.8111	0.7281
DFolding-server	4	17.01	0.5978	0.6634	0.5637
MULTICOM_deep	5	16.29	0.7416	0.8459	0.6875
NBIS-AF2-multimer (Standard AlphaFold-Multimer)	11	12.27	0.7186	0.8163	0.668

Table 2: Performance Improvements Over Baseline AlphaFold-Multimer

Method	TM-score Improvement Over AF-Multimer	Key Innovation
MULTICOM_qa (Top 1 prediction)	+5.3% (0.76 vs. 0.72)	Diverse MSA sampling + quality assessment
MULTICOM_qa (Best of 5 predictions)	+8% (0.80 vs. 0.74)	Enhanced model selection
DeepSCFold	+11.6%	Sequence-derived structure complementarity
Yang-Multimer	Leading overall performer	Not specified in available literature

MULTICOM System Performance

The MULTICOM system demonstrated particularly strong performance in CASP15, with its MULTICOMqa implementation ranking 3rd among 26 server predictors. When considering the best of five predictions submitted rather than just the first prediction, MULTICOMdeep ranked 2nd among all server predictors [47]. The system's approach to generating diverse multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and templates, followed by rigorous quality assessment and refinement, proved approximately 5-10% more accurate than standard AlphaFold-Multimer [47]. This performance improvement was consistent across both template-based and free modeling targets, though more pronounced in the more challenging FM targets.

Emerging Methods: DeepSCFold

Although not officially ranked in CASP15, subsequent benchmarking against CASP15 targets revealed that DeepSCFold achieves an impressive 11.6% improvement in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and 10.3% improvement over AlphaFold3 [1]. This method utilizes sequence-based deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability, providing a foundation for constructing deep paired multiple-sequence alignments (pMSAs). When applied to antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhanced the prediction success rate for antibody-antigen binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [1].

Methodological Approaches of Leading Systems

The MULTICOM Architecture

The MULTICOM system enhances AlphaFold-Multimer-based prediction through a comprehensive pipeline addressing input optimization and output refinement:

The key innovation of MULTICOM lies in its sampling of diverse multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and templates using both traditional sequence alignments and Foldseek-based structure alignments [47]. This diverse input is then processed by AlphaFold-Multimer to generate structural predictions, which are ranked through multiple complementary quality assessment metrics including AlphaFold-Multimer's native confidence score, average pairwise structural similarity (PSS) between predictions, and combinations thereof. The top-ranked predictions undergo further refinement using a Foldseek structure alignment-based method to produce the final output [47].

DeepSCFold's Sequence-Based Structure Complementarity

DeepSCFold introduces a novel approach that leverages sequence-derived structural complementarity rather than relying solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals:

At the core of DeepSCFold are two deep learning models that predict from sequence alone: (1) a pSS-score predicting protein-protein structural similarity between query sequences and their homologs, and (2) a pIA-score estimating interaction probability between sequences from distinct subunit MSAs [1]. These predictions enable the construction of biologically relevant paired MSAs that effectively capture intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns, particularly valuable for complexes lacking clear co-evolutionary signals such as antibody-antigen and virus-host systems [1].

Experimental Protocols for Multimer Structure Prediction

MSA and Template Preparation Protocol

High-quality multiple sequence alignment construction is universally critical for accurate multimer prediction:

• Sequence Database Search: Query individual subunit sequences against multiple sequence databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB using tools like HHblits, Jackhmmer, and MMseqs2 [1].

• Monomeric MSA Processing: Generate and process individual subunit MSAs, applying filters based on sequence similarity, coverage, and other quality metrics.

• Paired MSA Construction: Employ species pairing, known protein-protein interaction data, or predicted interaction probabilities (as in DeepSCFold) to concatenate monomeric MSAs into meaningful complex MSAs [47] [1].

• Template Identification: Combine templates identified through traditional sequence alignment methods with those found using structure-based alignment tools like Foldseek [47].

Structure Generation and Refinement Protocol

The actual structure prediction follows a multi-stage refinement process:

• Initial Structure Generation: Run AlphaFold-Multimer with diverse MSA/template inputs using multiple seeds and increased recycling steps (typically 3-20 cycles) [47] [1].

• Model Selection: Rank generated structures using composite quality scores incorporating interface accuracy estimates, model confidence (pLDDT), and structural consensus metrics [47].

• Iterative Refinement: Submit top-ranked models for additional refinement using either:

  • Foldseek structure alignment-based refinement (MULTICOM)
  • Template-based refinement using top predictions as templates (DeepSCFold)

• Validation: Assess final models using interface-specific metrics (ICS, IPS) and global fold measures (TM-score, lDDToligo) against experimental structures [47].

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Software Tools for Multimer Prediction

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Multimer Prediction
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Core end-to-end deep learning system for protein complex structure prediction
Foldseek	Software	Fast structure comparison and alignment for template identification and refinement
UniRef30/90, UniProt, BFD	Database	Comprehensive sequence databases for multiple sequence alignment construction
HHblits, Jackhmmer, MMseqs2	Software	Sequence search tools for homologous sequence identification
US-align	Software	Structure comparison for TM-score calculation
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Database	Source of experimental structures for templates and validation
CASP15 Targets & Assessment	Benchmark	Gold-standard dataset for method development and validation

CASP15 established that while AlphaFold-Multimer provides a solid foundation for protein complex structure prediction, significant improvements of 5-11% in accuracy are achievable through enhanced MSA construction, diverse sampling strategies, and sophisticated quality assessment methods. The leading methods in CASP15, particularly MULTICOM and Yang-Multimer, demonstrated that combining traditional sequence-based approaches with structure-aware information and rigorous model selection consistently outperforms the standard AlphaFold-Multimer implementation.

The emerging DeepSCFold approach suggests that leveraging sequence-derived structural complementarity may be particularly valuable for challenging targets lacking clear co-evolutionary signals, such as antibody-antigen complexes. As the field progresses, the integration of these advanced methodologies with next-generation systems like AlphaFold3 (which showed substantial improvement for antibody-antigen prediction accuracy compared to AlphaFold-Multimer v.2.3) [21] promises to further advance the accuracy and applicability of protein complex structure prediction for fundamental biological research and drug development applications.

The accurate prediction of protein complex structures is a cornerstone of structural biology, with profound implications for understanding cellular functions and accelerating drug discovery [1]. While the advent of deep learning systems like AlphaFold has revolutionized the prediction of single-chain protein structures, accurately modeling the quaternary structures of multimers remains a formidable challenge due to the complexity of capturing inter-chain interactions [1]. The scientific community has responded with specialized tools, each employing distinct strategies to advance the field. Among these, DeepSCFold has demonstrated a significant quantitative improvement, reporting an 11.6% gain in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer in CASP15 benchmarks [1]. This comparison guide provides an objective assessment of DeepSCFold's performance against leading alternatives, supported by experimental data and detailed methodologies to assist researchers in selecting appropriate tools for their investigations.

Performance Comparison of Multimer Prediction Tools

Table 1: Overall performance comparison on CASP15 and antibody-antigen benchmarks

Method	TM-score (CASP15)	Improvement over AF-Multimer	Antibody-Antigen Success Rate	Key Innovation
DeepSCFold	Highest	+11.6% [1]	+24.7% over AF-Multimer, +12.4% over AF3 [1]	Sequence-derived structure complementarity
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline	-	Baseline	Specialized training on complexes
AlphaFold3	High	Reference for +10.3% DeepSCFold gain [1]	Intermediate	Diffusion-based architecture, general biomolecules
AF3Complex	High (CASP16 level)	Outperforms AlphaFold3 [51] [52]	High-fidelity structures [51]	Unpaired MSAs, interface-focused scoring

Table 2: Specialized capabilities across complex types

Method	Protein-Ligand	Protein-Nucleic Acid	Antibody-Antigen	Architecture Type
DeepSCFold	Limited data	Limited data	24.7% improvement over AF-Multimer [1]	AlphaFold-Multimer extension
AlphaFold-Multimer	Not supported	Not supported	Low success (11%) [53]	Specialized complex training
AlphaFold3	High accuracy [21]	High accuracy [21]	Improved over AF-Multimer [21]	Diffusion-based generalist
AF3Complex	Supported via AF3 backbone	Supported via AF3 backbone	High-fidelity [52]	AlphaFold3 optimization

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

DeepSCFold's Core Innovation

DeepSCFold introduces a novel approach to protein complex modeling by leveraging sequence-derived structure complementarity rather than relying primarily on co-evolutionary signals [1]. The methodology employs two key deep learning predictors:

• pSS-score: Predicts protein-protein structural similarity from sequence information alone
• pIA-score: Estimates interaction probability based solely on sequence-level features [1]

These predictors enable the construction of optimized deep paired multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) that effectively capture inter-chain interaction patterns, even for complexes lacking clear co-evolutionary signals such as antibody-antigen and virus-host systems [1].

The experimental workflow involves:

• Generating monomeric MSAs from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, ColabFold DB)
• Using pSS-scores to enhance ranking and selection of monomeric MSAs
• Applying pIA-scores to systematically concatenate monomeric homologs
• Integrating multi-source biological information (species annotations, UniProt accessions, PDB complexes)
• Performing complex structure prediction through AlphaFold-Multimer with iterative template refinement [1]

Benchmarking Protocols

The performance metrics cited for DeepSCFold were derived from rigorous independent benchmarking:

CASP15 Evaluation:

• Benchmark set: Multimeric targets from CASP15 competition
• Temporal constraint: Protein sequence databases available only up to May 2022
• Comparison methods: AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3, Yang-Multimer, MULTICOM, NBIS-AF2-multimer
• Primary metric: TM-score for overall structural accuracy [1]

Antibody-Antigen Evaluation:

• Dataset: Complexes from SAbDab database
• Focus: Binding interface prediction success rate
• Significance: Tests performance on complexes typically lacking inter-chain co-evolution [1]

Large-Scale Validation: The PSBench benchmark, comprising over one million structural models from CASP15 and CASP16, provides additional validation context. This comprehensive resource includes diverse protein complexes with varying sequence lengths, stoichiometries, and difficulty levels, enabling robust method evaluation [54].

Table 3: Key research reagents and computational resources for protein complex prediction

Resource	Type	Function in Research	Availability
Multiple Sequence Databases	Data	Provides evolutionary information for MSA construction	Public
pSS-score & pIA-score	Algorithm	Predicts structural similarity and interaction probability from sequence	DeepSCFold
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software Framework	Core structure prediction engine	Academic license
DeepUMQA-X	Algorithm	Complex model quality assessment for top model selection	DeepSCFold
PSBench	Benchmark	Standardized evaluation dataset with quality annotations	Public
SAbDab	Data	Specialized database for antibody-antigen complexes	Public
CASP Targets	Data	Blind test cases for rigorous method evaluation	Public

Discussion

Interpreting the Performance Metrics

DeepSCFold's reported 11.6% TM-score improvement over AlphaFold-Multimer represents a substantial advance in protein complex modeling. The TM-score metric evaluates topological similarity between predicted and experimental structures, with values closer to 1 indicating higher accuracy. This improvement is particularly significant given that it was achieved on the challenging CASP15 benchmark, which represents blind predictions against previously unknown structures [1].

Even more impressive is DeepSCFold's 24.7% higher success rate for antibody-antigen binding interfaces compared to AlphaFold-Multimer [1]. This demonstrates the method's particular strength in modeling challenging complexes that lack clear co-evolutionary signals, which have traditionally posed difficulties for deep learning approaches [53].

Complementary Approaches in the Field

While DeepSCFold shows impressive results, other approaches have also demonstrated success through different strategies:

AF3Complex takes the alternative approach of eliminating paired MSAs entirely, arguing that this avoids potential pitfalls from genetic paralogs and cross-talk between protein signaling pathways [51] [52]. Instead, it relies on unpaired MSAs and introduces a specialized interface similarity score (pIS) for model selection. This method has shown superior performance to standard AlphaFold3 on large protein complex datasets [52].

AlphaFold3 itself represents a fundamental architectural shift, employing a diffusion-based approach that minimizes reliance on MSAs and expands capabilities to include ligands, ions, and nucleic acids [21]. While generally more accurate than previous versions, it provides a different trade-off between generality and specialized complex prediction performance.

Practical Research Implications

For researchers selecting tools for specific applications:

• Antibody-antigen complexes: DeepSCFold's structural complementarity approach offers distinct advantages for these challenging targets
• General protein-protein complexes: Both DeepSCFold and AF3Complex show superior performance to baseline methods
• Complexes with small molecules/nucleic acids: AlphaFold3 or AF3Complex provide necessary capability coverage
• High-throughput applications: AF3Complex's elimination of paired MSA generation offers computational efficiency benefits

The field continues to advance rapidly, with recent CASP16 results indicating ongoing improvements across all major methods. The development of comprehensive benchmarks like PSBench enables more rigorous comparison and development of these critical tools in structural biology [54].

The precise prediction of the antibody-antigen (Ab-Ag) interface represents a cornerstone of modern computational immunology and therapeutic development. For researchers and drug development professionals, the accuracy of these predictions directly impacts the efficiency of designing biologics for treating diseases ranging from cancer to infectious pathogens. This guide objectively compares the performance of current state-of-the-art prediction tools, framing the evaluation within the broader thesis of assessing accuracy in multimer prediction tools. The following sections provide a detailed comparison of methodologies, quantitative performance data derived from recent studies, and the experimental protocols that underpin these benchmarks, offering a critical resource for scientists selecting tools for their research pipelines.

Comparative Analysis of Prediction Tools

The landscape of Ab-Ag interface prediction is diverse, encompassing methods that leverage structural flexibility, geometric fingerprints, protein language models, and deep learning architectures. The table below summarizes the core methodologies and reported performance of several leading tools.

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Antibody-Antigen Interface Prediction Tools

Tool Name	Core Methodology	Primary Prediction Task	Reported Performance	Key Innovation
dMaSIF-flex [33] [55]	Fingerprint-based approach integrating pLDDT from ESMFold as a flexibility proxy.	Ab-Ag interaction & paratope prediction	AUC-ROC: 92% (4% improvement from flexibility inclusion) [33]	Uses pLDDT confidence scores to model conformational flexibility.
EPP (Epitope-Paratope Predictor) [56]	ESM-2 protein language model with a Bi-LSTM network.	Epitope-paratope interaction from sequence.	Superior accuracy vs. existing methods; recognizes distinct epitopes for the same antigen [56].	Jointly predicts epitopes and paratopes using only sequence inputs.
Graphinity [31]	Equivariant Graph Neural Network (EGNN) on atomistic graphs.	Change in binding affinity (ΔΔG).	Pearson's R: ~0.87 (on experimental data, but sensitive to splits) [31].	Directly processes atomistic structures; robust on large synthetic data.
RFdiffusion-based Design [57]	Fine-tuned diffusion model for de novo antibody design.	De novo generation of antibody structures for specific epitopes.	Experimental validation of designed VHHs binding to targets like influenza HA and TcdB [57].	Atomically accurate de novo design of antibody CDR loops and docking.
GEP (Geometric Epitope-Paratope) [33] [55]	Geometric molecular representations and graph-based approaches.	Epitope and paratope prediction.	Establishes a state-of-the-art in predicting both epitopes and paratopes [33].	Combines surface-based (epitope) and graph-based (paratope) models.

Decoding the Experimental Protocols

The quantitative metrics presented in the comparison table are derived from rigorous, though distinct, experimental frameworks. Understanding these protocols is critical for a fair interpretation of the reported accuracies.

Protocol for Flexibility-Enhanced Interaction Prediction (dMaSIF-flex)

The dMaSIF-flex pipeline demonstrates the significance of incorporating protein flexibility, a major challenge in Ab-Ag modeling [33] [55].

• Input and Pre-processing: The method takes the amino acid sequences of the antibody and antigen as input.
• Structure and Flexibility Prediction: ESMFold, a deep learning model, is used to generate the 3D structure from the sequence. Crucially, ESMFold also outputs a per-residue pLDDT (predicted Local Distance Difference Test) score. Lower pLDDT scores are interpreted as a proxy for higher residue flexibility [33].
• Feature Integration and Training: The molecular surface is processed using the dMaSIF framework, which computes geometric and chemical "fingerprints." The pLDDT scores are incorporated as an additional feature channel, providing the model with information on regional flexibility, particularly in key areas like the CDR-H3 loop.
• Validation: Model performance was evaluated on standard benchmarks for Ab-Ag interaction and paratope prediction, with the integration of pLDDT leading to a demonstrated 4% improvement in predictive accuracy [33].

Protocol for Sequence-Based Interaction Prediction (EPP)

The EPP model offers a purely sequence-based approach for joint epitope-paratope prediction, bypassing the need for known structures [56].

• Dataset Curation: A non-redundant dataset of antigen-antibody complexes is sourced from the Structural Antibody Database (SAbDab). The interface residues (epitope and paratope) are defined using a distance cutoff (e.g., residues within 4.5Ã… of each other across the interface) [56].
• Feature Encoding: The amino acid sequences of the antigen and antibody are fed into ESM-2, a large protein language model. ESM-2 converts each residue into a rich, context-aware numerical embedding, eliminating the need for manual feature curation.
• Model Architecture and Training: The sequence of ESM-2 embeddings for both antigen and antibody is processed by a Bidirectional LSTM (Bi-LSTM) network. This architecture is adept at capturing long-range, contextual dependencies within the sequences. The final output layer predicts the probability of each residue being part of the binding interface.
• Validation: The model's performance is tested on held-out complexes, demonstrating an ability to distinguish the specific epitopes on an antigen that are recognized by different antibodies [56].

Protocol for Binding Affinity Change Prediction (Graphinity)

Graphinity tackles the critical challenge of predicting how mutations affect binding strength (ΔΔG) [31].

• Input Representation: The wild-type and mutant antibody-antigen complex structures are converted into atomistic graphs. In these graphs, nodes represent non-hydrogen atoms, and edges represent interactions between atoms within a 4Ã… cutoff. The graph is focused on the neighborhood surrounding the mutated residue.
• Network Architecture: A Siamese Equivariant GNN (EGNN) processes the paired (wild-type and mutant) graphs. This architecture ensures the predictions are invariant to rotations and translations of the input structures. The network learns to capture the subtle atomic-level perturbations caused by the mutation.
• Training and Robustness Assessment: The model is trained to regress the experimental ΔΔG value. A key part of its evaluation involves implementing sequence-identity cutoffs between training and test sets (e.g., ensuring no mutations from the same complex are in both sets) to test for generalizability rather than overfitting. While it achieves high Pearson correlations (up to 0.87), its performance is shown to be sensitive to these splits, highlighting a limitation of current experimental datasets [31].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Computational Workflows

Reagent / Resource	Type	Primary Function in Research
SAbDab (Structural Antibody Database) [56] [31]	Database	A curated repository of antibody and nanobody structures, often used as the primary source for training and benchmarking data.
ESM-2 Protein Language Model [56]	Computational Model	Generates context-aware, numerical representations of amino acid sequences from sequence alone, used as input features for predictors.
ESMFold & AlphaFold2/3 [33] [57]	Computational Tool	Predicts the 3D structure of a protein from its amino acid sequence, a critical first step for structure-based methods.
pLDDT (predicted LDDT) [33] [55]	Metric	A per-residue confidence score from structure prediction tools; repurposed as a coarse proxy for local structural flexibility.
Yeast Surface Display [57]	Experimental Assay	A high-throughput technique for screening thousands of computationally designed antibody variants for actual antigen binding.
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) [57]	Experimental Assay	A gold-standard, biophysical method for quantitatively measuring the binding affinity (KD) and kinetics of antibody-antigen interactions.

Integrated Workflow for Prediction and Validation

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationship and convergence of the different computational and experimental methodologies discussed in this guide into a cohesive workflow for antibody design and validation.

The advent of highly accurate protein structure prediction tools, notably AlphaFold, has revolutionized structural biology [8]. However, for researchers focused on biomolecular interactions—such as those in drug development—global metrics like global distance test (GDT) scores provide insufficient insight into the accuracy of functionally critical interface regions where molecular binding occurs. This guide compares specialized tools and methodologies for assessing interface residue accuracy and local structure quality, providing experimental data and protocols relevant for research on multimer prediction tools.

Key Protein Structure Assessment Tools Compared

The following tools represent the current state-of-the-art in assessing the quality of predicted protein structures, with a particular focus on interface residues and local accuracy.

Table 1: Key Protein Structure Assessment Tools

Tool Name	Primary Function	Assessment Focus	Key Metric	Experimental Performance
DeepUMQA3 [58]	Interface Residue Accuracy Assessment	Protein complexes, interface residues	Per-residue lDDT, interface residue accuracy	Ranked 1st in CASP15 blind test for interface residue estimation (Pearson: 0.564, AUC: 0.755) [58]
AlphaFold 3 [21]	Joint Structure Prediction	Biomolecular complexes (proteins, nucleic acids, ligands)	Predicted lDDT (pLDDT), Predicted Aligned Error (PAE), Distance Error (PDE)	Outperforms specialized docking tools and earlier versions on protein-ligand interfaces [21]
PREFMD [59]	Physics-Based Refinement	Global and local structure refinement	GDT-HA, lDDT, CAD-aa	Consistently improved AlphaFold CASP13 models; 78/104 targets refined, especially TBM-easy (85%) [59]
Local Structure Prediction [60]	Local Fragment Structure Prediction	Local sequence-structure relationships	RMSD Quantization Error	Achieved quantization error of 1.19 Ã… for 27 structural representatives (fragment length: 7 residues) [60]

Quantitative Performance Data

Independent assessments, particularly from the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments, provide crucial performance data for comparing these tools.

Table 2: Quantitative Performance in Blind Tests

Assessment Context	Tool	Performance Metrics	Comparison to Next Best
CASP15 Interface Assessment [58]	DeepUMQA3	Pearson: 0.564, Spearman: 0.535, AUC: 0.755	17.6%, 23.6%, and 10.9% higher than second-best method, respectively [58]
CASP13 Refinement [59]	AlphaFold + PREFMD	TBM-score: 61.7 (from 44.6), FM-score: 69.0 (from 67.2)	Surpassed best template-based modeling protocols; produced best models for 41 targets (vs. 25 for AlphaFold alone) [59]
Protein-Ligand Benchmark [21]	AlphaFold 3	Percentage with pocket-aligned ligand RMSD < 2Ã…	Significantly outperformed classical docking tools (Vina) and RoseTTAFold All-Atom (p-values < 0.001) [21]

Experimental Protocols for Assessment

To ensure reproducible and meaningful comparisons, researchers employ standardized experimental protocols.

Community-Wide Blind Assessments (CASP)

The Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) provides the gold-standard framework for blind testing prediction and assessment methods [58] [59]. For interface-specific evaluation in CASP, the procedure involves:

• Target Selection: Recently solved protein complex structures that are not yet publicly disclosed are used as targets.
• Method Submission: Participating groups submit their accuracy assessments for the provided protein complex models.
• Objective Evaluation: Predictions are compared against the experimental ground truth using a set of independent metrics:
  • Local Distance Difference Test (lDDT): A local superposition-free metric that evaluates the local distance concordance of a model, making it particularly suitable for assessing interface residues [58] [59].
  • Interface-specific Metrics: Analysis focuses specifically on the residues located at the binding interface between protein chains.
  • Statistical Correlation: The accuracy of the assessment method itself is judged by the correlation (Pearson, Spearman) between its predicted confidence scores and the actual observed accuracy, and the Area Under the Curve (AUC) for its ability to distinguish correct from incorrect interface residues [58].

Physics-Based Refinement Protocol

The PREFMD protocol, used to refine initial AlphaFold models, follows a multi-stage, physics-based approach [59]:

• Pre-sampling Stage: Local stereochemical errors like atomic clashes and poor backbone dihedral angles are resolved using tools like locPREFMD.
• Sampling Stage: Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations explore the conformational landscape. The protocol varies based on target size:
  • Iterative Protocol (for smaller targets, radius of gyration < 17 Ã…): Three iterations of MD simulations with flat-bottom harmonic restraints to allow significant structural changes within a defined radius.
  • Conservative Protocol (for larger targets): A single iteration of MD with harmonic restraints for more moderate, consistent refinement.
• Post-sampling Stage: Generated snapshots are evaluated using the Rosetta score. Low-scoring conformations undergo ensemble averaging, followed by another round of locPREFMD. Finally, residue-wise errors are estimated using root-mean-square-fluctuation (RMSF) from short MD simulations.

Local Structure Prediction and Clustering

This methodology defines a library of recurrent local structures to enable local accuracy assessment [60]:

• Clustering Local Structures: Recurrent local structure fragments from known protein structures are clustered based on structural similarity, using a Cα distance matrix comparison as a vector space representation.
• Defining Representatives: A set of structural representatives is defined, with the fragment having the lowest sum of distances to all others in a cluster chosen as the representative. The quality is measured by the RMSD quantization error.
• Training Discriminative Models: A classifier (e.g., Support Vector Machine, Random Forest) is trained to predict the probability of a local sequence window adopting each of the predefined local structure classes.

Visualization of Workflows and Relationships

Protein Complex Assessment Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for assessing the accuracy of a predicted protein complex, from initial model generation to final local assessment.

Protein Complex Assessment Workflow

DeepUMQA3 Architecture Logic

DeepUMQA3 employs a sophisticated neural network architecture that integrates features from multiple levels of a protein complex to achieve high accuracy in interface residue assessment.

DeepUMQA3 Architecture Logic

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

This section details key computational tools and data resources essential for research in protein interface assessment.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Item Name	Function/Purpose	Key Features/Applications
DeepUMQA3 Server [58]	Web server for assessing interface residue accuracy in protein complexes.	Uses multi-level features and deep residual networks; provides per-residue lDDT and interface accuracy.
PREFMD Protocol [59]	Physics-based refinement via molecular dynamics simulations.	Improves global and local structure of models; uses CHARMM c36m force field and Rosetta scoring.
AlphaFold 3 Model [21]	Predicts joint structure of biomolecular complexes.	Unified framework for proteins, nucleic acids, ligands; uses diffusion-based architecture and pairformer.
CASP Assessment Datasets [58] [59]	Gold-standard benchmark datasets for blind testing.	Provides recently solved, undisclosed structures for objective performance comparison.
Local Structure Fragment Library [60]	Defines recurrent local structures for local accuracy validation.	27 structural representatives for 7-residue fragments; quantization error of 1.19 Ã….
Molecular Replacement (Phaser) [59]	Evaluates model utility for crystal structure determination.	Calculates log-likelihood gain (LLG) for predicted models in molecular replacement.

Conclusion

The field of multimer prediction has advanced dramatically, with modern tools like AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3, and novel pipelines like DeepSCFold delivering unprecedented accuracy. However, significant challenges persist, particularly for complexes involving intrinsic disorder, transient interactions, or those lacking clear co-evolutionary signals. The consistent takeaway from independent benchmarks is that no single tool is universally superior; success depends on selecting the right method for the specific biological question and carefully optimizing the workflow. Future progress will hinge on better integration of physicochemical principles, improved handling of conformational dynamics, and the development of specialized models for high-value targets like antibody-antigen complexes. For biomedical researchers, these advances promise to unlock new opportunities in structure-based drug design and the mechanistic understanding of complex diseases, making the critical assessment of tool accuracy more vital than ever.

References

• 1. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65090-7]
• 2. Multimeric protein interaction and complex prediction [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12149419/]
• 3. Recent advances and challenges in protein complex ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037024001363]
• 4. Accurate prediction of protein assembly structure by ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43681-6]
• 5. Recent progress and future challenges in structure-based ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1525001625002771]
• 6. Global profiling of protein complex dynamics with an ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12440823/]
• 7. Principles of assembly reveal a periodic table of protein ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26659058/]
• 8. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2]
• 9. Structural determinants of co-translational protein complex ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867424013308]
• 10. So many protein structure prediction tools – what is the ... [https://cosmic-cryoem.org/2022/08/30/so-many-protein-structure-prediction-tools-what-is-the-difference/]
• 11. Predictomes, a classifier-curated database of AlphaFold- ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1097276525001054]
• 12. Before and after AlphaFold2: An overview of protein ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2023.1120370/full]
• 13. Unmasking AlphaFold to integrate experiments and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-52951-w]
• 14. AlphaFold-Multimer and the structural complexity of protein ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X2500020X]
• 15. A comprehensive benchmarking of the AlphaFold3 for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41313605/]
• 16. Structural Biology in the AlphaFold Era: How Far Is Artificial ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12109453/]
• 17. CAPIM: Catalytic activity and site prediction and analysis tool ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12535199/]
• 18. Assessing scoring metrics for AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12516916/]
• 19. Multimeric protein interaction and complex prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025001722]
• 20. Reliable protein-protein docking with AlphaFold, Rosetta, and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40424178/]
• 21. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w]
• 22. Evaluation of De Novo Deep Learning Models on the ... [https://rosettacommons.org/2025/09/23/evaluation-of-de-novo-deep-learning-models-on-the-protein-sugar-interactome/]
• 23. AlphaFold2, AlphaFold-Multimer, AlphaFold3 [https://310.ai/blog/alphafold2-alphafold-multimer-alphafold3]
• 24. AlphaFold 3 vs AlphaFold 2/AlphaFold2-Multimer [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/alphafold-3-vs-2alphafold2-multimer-summary-genophore-inc-vuqqe]
• 25. Extra: AlphaFold-Multimer [https://elearning.vib.be/courses/alphafold/lessons/alphafold-on-the-hpc/topic/extra-alphafold-multimer/]
• 26. The Illustrated AlphaFold | Elana Simon [https://elanapearl.github.io/blog/2024/the-illustrated-alphafold/]
• 27. AlphaFold multimer [https://cosmic-cryoem.org/tools/alphafoldmultimer/]
• 28. AlphaFold2 inputs and outputs – Recap | AlphaFold [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/inputs-and-outputs/alphafold-inputs-and-outputs-recap/]
• 29. DeepSCFold - IOBIO Lab [http://zhanglab-bioinf.com/DeepSCFold/]
• 30. [Literature Review] High-accuracy protein complex ... [https://www.themoonlight.io/en/review/biorxiv/high-accuracy-protein-complex-structure-modeling-based-on-sequence-derived-structure-complementarity]
• 31. Investigating the volume and diversity of data needed for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s43588-025-00823-8]
• 32. MVSF-AB: accurate antibody-antigen binding affinity ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39363630/]
• 33. Enhancing antibody-antigen interaction prediction with atomic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12530544/]
• 34. Enzyme specificity prediction using cross-attention graph ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09697-2]
• 35. Prediction of enzyme function using an interpretable optimized ... [https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlehtml/2025/sc/d5sc04513d]
• 36. A general model for predicting enzyme functions based on ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10983695/]
• 37. Decoding disorder: Advances in predicting intrinsically ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S157016462500030X]
• 38. AlphaFold-Multimer accurately captures interactions and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11536093/]
• 39. What's Hot in 2025: Protein Structure Prediction using AI [https://www.criver.com/eureka/whats-hot-2025-protein-structure-prediction-using-ai]
• 40. IDRdecoder: a machine learning approach for rational drug ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12313641/]
• 41. Emerging frontiers in protein structure prediction following ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11999738/]
• 42. Replica exchange simulations of transient encounter ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2529066/]
• 43. Using the Concept of Transient Complex for Affinity ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3842397/]
• 44. Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-28865-w]
• 45. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12630834/]
• 46. Evaluation of AlphaFold-Multimer prediction on multi-chain ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10348836/]
• 47. Enhancing alphafold-multimer-based protein complex ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10638423/]
• 48. Protein Structure Prediction Center [https://predictioncenter.org/]
• 49. Home - CASP15 [https://predictioncenter.org/casp15/]
• 50. Results - CASP15 [https://predictioncenter.org/casp15/results.cgi]
• 51. AF3Complex Yields Improved Structural Predictions of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11908126/]
• 52. AF3Complex yields improved structural predictions of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12349917/]
• 53. Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9278006/]
• 54. PSBench: a large-scale benchmark for estimating the ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.22674v1]
• 55. Enhancing antibody-antigen interaction prediction with atomic ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013576]
• 56. Enhanced prediction of antigen and antibody binding ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0198885925000758]
• 57. Atomically accurate de novo design of antibodies with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09721-5]
• 58. a web server for accurate assessment of interface residue ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37740296/]
• 59. HIGH-ACCURACY PROTEIN STRUCTURES BY ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7125014/]
• 60. Local protein structure prediction using discriminative models [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-7-14]