Protein Structure Prediction Accuracy: From Deep Learning Breakthroughs to Real-World Biomedical Applications

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive overview of protein structure prediction accuracy, a field revolutionized by deep learning. It covers foundational concepts and assessment metrics like GDT-TS and lDDT, explores advanced methodologies including AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, and novel complex-prediction tools like DeepSCFold and RoseTTAFoldNA. The content addresses key challenges and optimization strategies for modeling complexes and antibodies, and details rigorous validation frameworks such as CASP and PSBench. Aimed at researchers and drug development professionals, it synthesizes how accurate computational models are accelerating functional insights and therapeutic discovery.

The Foundation of Accuracy: Metrics, Milestones, and Why It Matters

Defining the Protein Folding Problem and the Quest for Accuracy

The "protein folding problem" is a central challenge in structural biology, concerned with how a protein's one-dimensional amino acid sequence dictates its unique, three-dimensional, biologically active structure [1]. This structure, in turn, determines its function. The problem is famously encapsulated by Anfinsen's dogma, which posits that a protein's native structure is the one in which it is thermodynamically most stable under its physiological conditions [2] [1]. This principle implies that the information required for folding is entirely contained within the amino acid sequence, making the computational prediction of structure from sequence a theoretically solvable problem.

However, this prediction is confronted by Levinthal's paradox, which highlights the computational infeasibility of a protein randomly sampling all possible conformations to find its native state. The number of possible conformations is astronomically large, and such a random search would take longer than the age of the universe, yet proteins fold on timescales from microseconds to minutes [2]. This paradox suggests that proteins fold through directed pathways rather than random search.

For researchers in drug development, solving this problem is paramount. Accurate protein structures are crucial for understanding disease mechanisms, identifying drug targets, and rational drug design. The quest for accuracy in protein structure prediction is, therefore, not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental endeavor to accelerate biomedical discovery.

The Fundamental Challenges and Forces

The protein folding problem encompasses three closely related puzzles [1]:

• The Folding Code: Understanding the balance of interatomic forces that dictates the native structure for a given sequence.
• The Folding Mechanism: Uncovering the kinetic pathways and processes a protein uses to fold so quickly.
• Structure Prediction: Developing computational methods to predict a native structure from its amino acid sequence.

While numerous forces contribute to stability—including hydrogen bonds, van der Waals interactions, and electrostatic interactions—the hydrophobic effect is often considered a dominant driving force [1]. It compels non-polar amino acids to bury themselves in the protein's core, shielded from the aqueous environment. The stability gained from this process helps organize the protein's topology. Furthermore, secondary structures like alpha-helices and beta-sheets are not only stabilized by local hydrogen bonds but also by the chain compactness driven by the hydrophobic collapse [1].

Table 1: Key Interatomic Forces in Protein Folding

Force	Estimated Contribution to Stability	Role in Folding
Hydrophobic Effect	~1-2 kcal/mol per buried side chain [1]	Primary driver of compaction and core formation.
Hydrogen Bonding	~1-4 kcal/mol per bond [1]	Stabilizes secondary structures and satisfies polar groups.
van der Waals	Difficult to isolate	Optimized through tight atomic packing in the core.
Electrostatics	Variable, often context-dependent	Influences surface residues and can guide folding pathways.

The Computational Challenge and the AI Revolution

The Leap with Deep Learning

The theoretical possibility of prediction, combined with the impossibility of a brute-force approach, made protein folding a grand challenge for computational biology for decades. Traditional methods relied on homology modeling and physical simulations, but their accuracy was limited, especially for proteins without close evolutionary relatives with known structures [1].

The field was revolutionized by the application of artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning. Modern machine learning methods identify complex relationships in large datasets, enabling the direct prediction of a protein's final 3D shape without needing to simulate the physical folding process, thereby sidestepping Levinthal's paradox [2]. A pivotal breakthrough came with AlphaFold2, a deep learning system that achieved unprecedented accuracy in predicting protein structures [3]. Its success has super-charged structural biology, providing new insights into protein function and the effects of disease-causing mutations [4].

Accuracy Benchmarks and Community Standards

The progress in computational prediction has been rigorously measured through community-wide blind tests like the Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) [1]. These experiments have quantitatively demonstrated the dramatic improvement in prediction accuracy, especially for single protein chains (monomers). AlphaFold2's performance in CASP14 was a landmark, often producing models with accuracy comparable to experimental structures [3].

Table 2: Key Databases for Protein Structure and Prediction Research

Database Name	Content	URL	Utility in Accuracy Research
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Experimentally determined 3D structures.	https://www.rcsb.org/	Gold-standard repository for experimental validation and training data.
AlphaFold DB	AI-predicted structures for catalogued sequences.	https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/	Provides a vast resource of pre-computed models for millions of proteins.
AlphaSync	Continuously updated predicted structures.	https://alphasync.stjude.org/	Ensures researchers work with the most current sequence-matched models; provides pre-computed interaction data [4].
SWISS-MODEL	Repository of comparative protein structure models.	https://swissmodel.expasy.org/	Source of high-quality homology models.
BMRB	NMR data for biological macromolecules.	https://bmrb.io/	Provides data on protein dynamics and solution-state conformations.

Experimental Methodologies for Validation and Data Generation

Computational predictions require rigorous experimental validation. Furthermore, experimental data on folding stability provides the essential ground truth for developing and refining predictive models.

Established Experimental Structure Determination

The primary experimental methods for determining high-resolution protein structures are:

• X-ray Crystallography: Provides atomic-resolution structures but requires protein crystallization.
• Cryo-Electron Microscopy (cryo-EM): Especially powerful for large complexes and membrane proteins; technical advances have enabled near-atomic resolution [5].
• Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) Spectroscopy: Determines structures in solution and provides unique insights into protein dynamics and flexibility [5].

High-Throughput Stability Measurement (cDNA Display Proteolysis)

Recent innovations allow for the mega-scale experimental analysis of protein folding stability, generating vast datasets for machine learning. One such method is cDNA display proteolysis [6].

Detailed Protocol:

• Library Construction: A DNA library encoding hundreds of thousands of protein variants is synthesized.
• cDNA Display: The DNA library is transcribed and translated in vitro using a cell-free system. Each protein is covalently attached to its own cDNA molecule via a puromycin linker.
• Proteolysis: The protein-cDNA library is incubated with a series of increasing concentrations of a protease (e.g., trypsin or chymotrypsin). Folded proteins are resistant to cleavage, while unfolded regions are digested.
• Selection and Pull-Down: Proteolysis is quenched. Intact (folded) proteins, which still have their cDNA attached, are isolated using an antibody against a tag (e.g., an N-terminal PA tag).
• Sequencing and Analysis: The surviving cDNA is quantified by deep sequencing. A Bayesian model infers the protease stability (K50) for each sequence. Using a kinetic model that accounts for cleavage rates in the folded and unfolded states, the thermodynamic folding stability (ΔG) is calculated for each variant [6].

This protocol can measure up to 900,000 protein domains in a single week, creating massive datasets that map sequence changes to folding stability [6].

Standardizing Folding Kinetics Experiments

To ensure consistency and comparability of folding data across laboratories, a consensus set of standard conditions has been proposed [7]:

• Temperature: 25°C is recommended as a standard reference temperature.
• Denaturant: Urea is preferred over guanidinium salts due to fewer ionic strength effects.
• Solvent: A buffer at pH 7.0 (e.g., 50 mM phosphate or HEPES) with no added salt is recommended unless otherwise justified [7]. The raw kinetic data (e.g., Chevron plots) should be made available to allow for future re-analysis as models improve.

The New Frontier: Accuracy in Protein Complexes

While accuracy for monomeric proteins has been largely solved by AI, predicting the structures of protein complexes (multimers) remains a formidable challenge [3]. This requires accurately modeling both the internal structure of each chain and the interactions between chains.

New methods are pushing the boundaries of accuracy for complexes. DeepSCFold is a pipeline that enhances protein complex modeling by using deep learning to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability directly from sequence [3]. Instead of relying solely on sequence co-evolution, it leverages structural complementarity—the idea that nature uses a limited repertoire of structural binding patterns.

Key Methodology of DeepSCFold:

• From input protein sequences, it first generates monomeric multiple sequence alignments (MSAs).
• A deep learning model predicts a pSS-score, which quantifies structural similarity between the input sequence and its homologs, improving MSA ranking.
• A second model predicts a pIA-score, estimating the interaction probability between pairs of sequences from different subunits.
• These scores are used to construct high-quality, deep paired MSAs, which are then fed into a structure prediction network like AlphaFold-Multimer.
• Benchmark results show DeepSCFold significantly increases accuracy, achieving an 11.6% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer on CASP15 targets and a 24.7% higher success rate for antibody-antigen interfaces [3].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Protein Folding and Accuracy Research

Reagent / Material	Function in Research	Example Use Case
Urea & Guandinium HCl	Chemical denaturants	Used to destabilize the native state in folding/unfolding experiments to measure stability and kinetics [7].
Proteases (Trypsin, Chymotrypsin)	Enzymes for stability assays	Used in high-throughput methods like cDNA display proteolysis to discriminate between folded and unfolded protein states [6].
PA Tag & Antibody	Affinity handle for pull-down	Enables isolation of intact protein-cDNA fusions after proteolysis in cDNA display [6].
Puromycin Linker	Covalent protein-cDNA linkage	Critical reagent in cDNA and mRNA display technologies, creating a physical link between genotype and phenotype [6].
Deep Sequencing Library	Encodes protein variants	The starting DNA material for high-throughput experiments, containing the sequences of all test proteins [6].
Graph Convolutional Network (GCN)	Computational analysis	A deep learning architecture used in tools like DeepFRI for predicting protein function from structure and in structure prediction itself [8].

Visualizing Workflows and Relationships

The AI-Driven Structure Prediction Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the general workflow of a modern deep learning-based structure prediction system, integrating concepts from AlphaFold and DeepSCFold.

High-Throughput Stability Measurement

This diagram outlines the core process of the cDNA display proteolysis method for measuring folding stability at a mega-scale.

In protein structure prediction accuracy research, the ability to quantitatively evaluate computational models against experimentally determined reference structures is fundamental. The field relies on robust, objective metrics to measure progress, compare methodologies, and determine the real-world applicability of predicted models in downstream tasks like drug design. Among the plethora of scores developed, three have emerged as critical standards: the Global Distance Test - Total Score (GDT-TS), the local Distance Difference Test (lDDT), and its predicted variant, pLDDT. This guide provides an in-depth technical explanation of these core metrics, detailing their calculation, interpretation, and application in modern structural biology, particularly in the context of deep learning-based predictors like AlphaFold and ESMFold.

Core Metrics at a Glance

The following table summarizes the key characteristics of the three primary assessment metrics.

Table 1: Overview of Key Protein Structure Assessment Metrics

Metric	Full Name	What It Measures	Score Range	Reference
GDT-TS	Global Distance Test - Total Score	Global fold similarity by measuring the percentage of Cα atoms within defined distance thresholds after optimal superposition.	0 to 100 (Higher is better)	[9]
lDDT	local Distance Difference Test	Local structural accuracy and atomic details, including side chains, without global superposition.	0 to 1 (Higher is better)	[10] [11]
pLDDT	predicted Local Distance Difference Test	AlphaFold/ESMFold's per-residue estimate of local confidence, based on the expected lDDT against a theoretical true structure.	0 to 100 (Higher is more confident)	[12]

The Global Distance Test - Total Score (GDT-TS)

Definition and Calculation

GDT-TS is a global, superposition-dependent metric that quantifies the overall fold similarity between a predicted model and a reference structure. It measures the percentage of Cα atoms in the model that can be superimposed on corresponding atoms in the reference structure within a set of distance thresholds [9]. The "TS" stands for "Total Score," which is the average of the percentages of Cα atoms placed within four thresholds: 1, 2, 4, and 8 Ångströms [9] [11].

The calculation involves finding the optimal superposition for each threshold that maximizes the number of Cα atoms within that distance cutoff. This makes GDT-TS more robust to small, localized errors than metrics like Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD), as it is not dominated by a few large deviations [11].

Experimental Protocol and Interpretation

The standard server for calculating GDT-TS is the AS2TS/LGA (Local-Global Alignment) server [9]. The recommended protocol involves a two-run process:

• Run 1 (Superposition): The query and reference structures are submitted to the LGA server with specific parameters (-4 -o2 -gdc -lga_m -stral -d:4.0) to determine the optimal superposition.
• Run 2 (GDT_TS Calculation): The output from Run 1 is pasted into a new LGA job with parameters changed to -3 -o2 -gdc -lga_m -stral -d:4.0 -al to calculate the final GDT-TS score.

The resulting score must often be adjusted based on the length of the reference structure to ensure a fair comparison, especially if the model does not cover the entire protein [9].

Interpretation of GDT-TS values [9]:

• ~20: Essentially a random prediction.
• ~50: The gross topology (fold) is correct.
• ~70: Accurate topology.
• >90: High accuracy, with correct backbone and side-chain conformations.

Table 2: GDT-TS Score Interpretation and Typical Scenarios

GDT-TS Score Range	Level of Accuracy	Typical Scenario
< 50	Incorrect Fold	Failed prediction or fundamentally different fold.
50 - 70	Correct Fold (Medium Accuracy)	Correct global topology but with structural errors.
70 - 90	High Accuracy	Accurate backbone, potential side-chain placement issues.
> 90	Very High Accuracy	Near-experimental quality model.

Limitations

GDT-TS's primary limitation is its dependence on global superposition. For multi-domain proteins or flexible proteins where domains can undergo rigid-body movements, the global superposition can be dominated by the largest domain. This can lead to artificially poor scores for other domains, even if they are individually modeled correctly [11]. This issue is often mitigated in community-wide assessments like CASP by manually defining "assessment units" (domains) for evaluation, but this process is time-consuming and subjective [11].

The local Distance Difference Test (lDDT)

Definition and Calculation

The lDDT is a superposition-free score designed to assess local structural accuracy and the quality of atomic details, including side chains [10] [11]. It is a reference-based metric that evaluates how well the local environment of all atoms in a model reproduces the environment in a reference structure.

The lDDT calculation follows these steps [11]:

• Identify Local Atom Pairs: For all atoms in the reference structure (not just Cα), identify all pairs of atoms (excluding those in the same residue) that are within a defined inclusion radius (R₀), typically 15 Å.
• Compare Distances: For each of these local atom pairs, compare the distance in the reference structure with the distance between the corresponding atoms in the model.
• Score Preserved Distances: A distance is considered "preserved" if the difference between the model and reference distances is within four tolerance thresholds: 0.5, 1, 2, and 4 Å.
• Compute Final Score: The final lDDT score is the average of the fractions of preserved distances across these four thresholds. The score ranges from 0 to 1, with higher scores indicating better local agreement.

A key feature is its handling of stereochemical ambiguities in residues like glutamic acid or valine; it computes two scores for different atom-naming schemes and uses the higher one [11].

Applications and Advantages

lDDT's superposition-free nature makes it particularly valuable for:

• Assessing Multi-Domain Proteins: It is less sensitive to domain movements, allowing for a fair evaluation of local model quality in each domain [11].
• Evaluating Local Model Quality: It can pinpoint specific regions of low quality, such as binding sites or protein cores [11].
• Using Multiple Reference Structures: lDDT can be computed against an ensemble of reference structures (e.g., from NMR), where distances are considered preserved if they fall within the range observed across the ensemble [11].
• Incorporating Stereochemical Checks: The calculation can be modified to penalize unrealistic bond lengths and angles [11].

Diagram 1: lDDT Calculation Workflow. This diagram illustrates the sequence of steps involved in calculating the local Distance Difference Test (lDDT), from identifying local atom pairs to averaging the final score.

The predicted lDDT (pLDDT)

Definition and Relation to lDDT

The pLDDT is a per-residue measure of local confidence generated by AI-based structure prediction tools like AlphaFold2/3 and ESMFold [12]. It is not a measure of accuracy against a known reference, but rather a prediction of what the lDDT score would be if the model were compared to the true, experimental structure [12]. It is scaled from 0 to 100 for each residue.

Interpretation as a Confidence Metric

pLDDT is a crucial output of predictive models, giving users an immediate indication of which parts of a predicted structure are reliable. The standard interpretation is as follows [12]:

• pLDDT > 90: Very high confidence. Both backbone and side chains are typically predicted with high accuracy.
• 90 > pLDDT > 70: Confident. The backbone is likely correct, but there may be misplacement of some side chains.
• 70 > pLDDT > 50: Low confidence. The region may be unstructured or contain errors.
• pLDDT < 50: Very low confidence. The prediction is highly unreliable for this region, which is likely intrinsically disordered.

pLDDT as a Proxy for Flexibility: A Critical Assessment

While designed as a confidence measure, pLDDT is often interpreted as a proxy for protein flexibility or dynamics. Recent large-scale studies provide a nuanced view:

• Correlation with Dynamics: A significant correlation exists between low pLDDT and high flexibility derived from Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations and NMR ensembles, particularly for residues with pLDDT < 50, which are often intrinsically disordered [13].
• Key Limitations: This correlation is not perfect. pLDDT often fails to capture flexibility in globular proteins, especially when they are crystallized with binding partners. In these cases, MD simulations more accurately reflect the flexibility observed in NMR ensembles [13].
• Conditional Folding: AlphaFold may predict a structured conformation with high pLDDT for some intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) that only fold upon binding a partner, because the folded state was present in its training data [12].

Crucially, pLDDT does not measure confidence in the relative orientation of protein domains or chains in a complex. It is strictly a measure of local confidence [12].

Practical Application in Modern Research

Table 3: Essential Tools for Protein Structure Prediction and Assessment

Tool / Resource Name	Type	Primary Function	Relevance to Metrics
AS2TS/LGA Server [9]	Web Server	Pairwise protein structure comparison.	The standard method for calculating GDT-TS.
SWISS-MODEL lDDT [10]	Web Server / Standalone	Evaluating local model quality.	Direct calculation of lDDT for a given model and reference.
AlphaFold DB [12]	Database	Repository of pre-computed AlphaFold models.	Source of models with associated pLDDT scores.
ColabFold [13]	Software Suite	Accessible platform for running AlphaFold2/3 and ESMFold.	Generates new models with pLDDT scores.
ATLAS MD Database [13]	Database	Repository of molecular dynamics trajectories.	For comparing pLDDT against experimental flexibility data (RMSF).
PDB [14]	Database	Repository of experimentally determined structures.	Essential source of reference structures for validation.

Metrics in Action: Insights from CASP

The Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments provide a real-world benchmark for how these metrics are used to evaluate cutting-edge methods.

In CASP16, the top-performing predictor, MULTICOM4, used an integrative approach to overcome challenges with difficult targets. Its success was evaluated using GDT-TS-derived Z-scores, which measure how much better a model is compared to the average of all predictions for a target [15]. MULTICOM4 achieved an average TM-score (a metric similar to GDT-TS) of 0.902 across 84 domains, with 73.8% of its top-1 predictions reaching high accuracy (TM-score > 0.9) [15]. This demonstrates that while metrics like pLDDT are used internally by predictors for model selection, community assessment still relies heavily on global superposition-based scores like GDT-TS and TM-score for final ranking.

Furthermore, CASP results highlight a critical challenge: model ranking can be harder than model generation. For hard targets, AlphaFold's self-reported pLDDT cannot consistently select the best model, necessitating additional quality assessment (QA) methods and model clustering to improve ranking reliability [15].

Protocol for Comparing Predictive Methods

When evaluating models from different AI predictors (e.g., AlphaFold2 vs. ESMFold) for a protein of interest, researchers should follow a systematic protocol:

• Acquire Models: Obtain models from databases (AlphaFold DB) or generate them using servers/local installations (ColabFold).
• Initial Inspection by pLDDT: Examine the per-residue pLDDT to identify low-confidence regions for each model.
• Global Assessment with GDT-TS: If an experimental structure is available, use the LGA server to calculate GDT-TS for each model against the reference to determine which has the more accurate overall fold.
• Local Assessment with lDDT: Use the lDDT score to evaluate which model has better atomic-level details, particularly in key regions of interest like active sites. This is especially important for multi-domain proteins.
• Consensus from Multiple QA Tools: As demonstrated in a comparative study of the human proteome, employing multiple state-of-the-art Quality Assessment (QA) tools can provide a consensus on which model (e.g., AlphaFold2 or ESMFold) is most reliable, particularly when the models disagree [16].

GDT-TS, lDDT, and pLDDT are complementary metrics that form the backbone of protein structure prediction accuracy research. GDT-TS remains the gold standard for assessing the overall, global fold of a model. In contrast, lDDT provides a superposition-free, granular view of local accuracy and stereochemistry. The AI-derived pLDDT is an indispensable confidence measure that guides the interpretation of predictions but must be understood as an estimate of local confidence rather than a direct measure of flexibility.

The ongoing evolution of structure prediction, exemplified by tools like AlphaFold3 and ESMFold, continues to rely on these rigorous metrics for validation and benchmarking. As the field progresses towards solving more complex problems, such as modeling large multi-protein assemblies and understanding conformational dynamics, the nuanced application of GDT-TS, lDDT, and pLDDT will continue to be essential for driving progress and ensuring the reliable application of computational models in biological research and drug discovery.

For over 50 years, the "protein folding problem" stood as a fundamental grand challenge in biology: predicting the three-dimensional structure of a protein from its one-dimensional amino acid sequence [17] [18]. Proteins are essential biological machines that perform virtually every process in living cells, and their functions are determined by their complex, folded structures [19]. Understanding these structures is crucial for deciphering disease mechanisms, developing new therapeutics, and understanding the basic principles of life.

Experimental methods for determining protein structures—including X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy—are often expensive, time-consuming, and technically demanding, sometimes taking years of painstaking effort per structure [20] [18]. While these methods have built the Protein Data Bank (PDB) to approximately 170,000-226,414 experimentally determined structures over several decades, this represents less than 0.1% of the billions of known protein sequences, creating a massive structural coverage gap [17] [20] [21]. This discrepancy highlighted the urgent need for accurate computational methods to predict protein structures at scale.

The AlphaFold2 Breakthrough

Historical Context and CASP14 Victory

AlphaFold2 represented a quantum leap in computational biology when it was unveiled at the CASP14 assessment in November 2020. The Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP) is a biennial blind competition that serves as the gold-standard evaluation for protein structure prediction methods [17]. In this rigorous assessment, AlphaFold2 demonstrated unprecedented accuracy, producing predictions with a median backbone accuracy of 0.96 Å (root-mean-square deviation), comparable to the width of a carbon atom (approximately 1.4 Å) [17]. This performance dramatically exceeded the next best method, which achieved 2.8 Å median accuracy [17].

The system achieved a score above 90 on CASP's global distance test (GDT) for approximately two-thirds of the proteins, where 100 represents a perfect match to experimentally determined structures [20]. Overall, AlphaFold2 made the best prediction for 88 out of 97 targets in the competition [20], leading CASP organizer John Moult to declare that the protein structure prediction problem had been "largely solved" [18].

Core Architectural Innovations

AlphaFold2's revolutionary performance stemmed from a complete redesign from its predecessor, incorporating novel neural network architectures and training procedures based on evolutionary, physical, and geometric constraints of protein structures [17]. The system operates as a single, differentiable, end-to-end model that directly predicts the 3D coordinates of all heavy atoms for a given protein [17] [20].

Table: Key Components of the AlphaFold2 Architecture

Component	Function	Key Innovation
Evoformer	Processes input multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and residue pairs	Novel attention mechanism enabling information exchange between MSA and pair representations
Structure Module	Generates explicit 3D atomic coordinates	Equivariant transformer that reasons about unrepresented side-chain atoms
Recycling	Iterative refinement of predictions	Repeatedly feeds outputs back into the same modules for progressive improvement
Loss Function	Guides network training	Places substantial weight on orientational correctness of residues

The network comprises two main stages. First, the Evoformer block—a novel neural network architecture—processes inputs through repeated layers to produce both a processed multiple sequence alignment representation and a representation of residue pairs [17]. The Evoformer enables continuous communication between these representations through innovative operations including axial attention and "triangle multiplicative updates" that enforce geometric consistency by reasoning about triangles of edges involving three different nodes [17].

The trunk of the network is followed by the structure module, which introduces an explicit 3D structure through rotations and translations for each protein residue [17]. These representations are initialized in a trivial state but rapidly develop into a highly accurate protein structure with precise atomic details. A key innovation involves breaking the chain structure to allow simultaneous local refinement of all parts of the structure [17].

AlphaFold2's architecture incorporates iterative refinement through "recycling," where outputs are repeatedly fed back into the same modules [17]. This process progressively improves prediction quality—initial iterations may produce correct topology but with stereochemical violations, while later iterations maintain accuracy while eliminating physical impossibilities [20].

Experimental Validation and Performance Metrics

CASP14 Assessment Methodology

The CASP14 assessment provided a rigorous, blind testing framework for evaluating AlphaFold2's capabilities. The competition used recently solved structures that had not been deposited in the PDB or publicly disclosed, ensuring an unbiased evaluation [17]. Predictions were evaluated using multiple complementary metrics:

• Global Distance Test (GDT): Measures the similarity between predicted and experimental structures, with 100 representing perfect match [20]
• Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD): Measures average distance between corresponding atoms in superimposed structures [17]
• Local Distance Difference Test (lDDT): A residue-by-residue quality metric that evaluates local structural quality [17]

AlphaFold2 also introduced the predicted lDDT (pLDDT), an per-residue confidence score that reliably estimates the accuracy of each part of the prediction [17].

Quantitative Results and Benchmarking

Table: AlphaFold2 Performance at CASP14 Compared to Next Best Method

Metric	AlphaFold2 Performance	Next Best Method	Improvement
Backbone Accuracy (Cα RMSD)	0.96 Å	2.8 Å	66% more accurate
All-Atom Accuracy	1.5 Å RMSD	3.5 Å RMSD	57% more accurate
High-Accuracy Predictions (GDT > 90)	~66% of proteins	Significantly lower	Dramatic improvement
Median GDT Score	>90 for two-thirds of proteins	Not specified	Substantial lead

The exceptional accuracy demonstrated in CASP14 extended to a large sample of recently released PDB structures that were not part of the training data, validating the generalizability of the approach [17]. The system proved scalable to very long proteins, accurately predicting the structure of a 2,180-residue protein with no structural homologs [17].

Research Applications and Implementation

Table: Key Research Reagents for AlphaFold2 Implementation

Resource	Type	Function and Application
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Database	Repository of experimentally determined protein structures for training and validation
UniProt	Database	Comprehensive protein sequence and functional information
Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs)	Data Input	Evolutionary information from homologous sequences
AlphaFold Protein Structure Database	Database	Pre-computed structures for ~200 million proteins
AlphaSync	Database	Continuously updated predicted structures addressing sequence database drift
AMBER Force Field	Physical Model	Final refinement using energy minimization to ensure stereochemical quality

Implementation of AlphaFold2 requires several key computational components. The system was trained on over 170,000 proteins from the PDB using substantial computational resources—between 100-200 GPUs [20]. For inference, the model takes as input the amino acid sequence and constructed multiple sequence alignments of homologs, which provide evolutionary constraints that guide structure prediction [17] [20].

After the neural network's prediction converges, a final refinement step applies local physical constraints using energy minimization based on the AMBER force field, slightly adjusting the predicted structure to ensure physical plausibility [20].

Workflow for Structure Prediction

The standard workflow begins with amino acid sequence input, followed by extensive database searches to construct deep multiple sequence alignments [17] [3]. These MSAs are then processed through the Evoformer blocks to generate refined representations that capture evolutionary and structural constraints [17]. The structure module translates these representations into 3D atomic coordinates, which undergo iterative refinement through recycling [17] [20]. Finally, the model outputs both the predicted structure and per-residue confidence estimates (pLDDT) that guide researchers in identifying reliable regions of the prediction [17].

Limitations and Future Directions

Despite its transformative impact, AlphaFold2 has several important limitations. The system shows reduced accuracy for orphan proteins that lack evolutionary information in the form of homologous sequences [21]. It also struggles with intrinsically disordered regions that do not adopt stable structures [21], and cannot reliably predict dynamic conformational changes or "fold-switching" behavior where proteins alter their structure under different conditions [21].

Perhaps most significantly, while AlphaFold2 excels at single-chain protein prediction, its accuracy decreases for protein complexes and interactions [21] [3]. This limitation motivated the development of AlphaFold-Multimer and, more recently, AlphaFold3, which extends capabilities to predict structures of protein complexes with DNA, RNA, ligands, and ions [20] [21].

The field continues to advance with new methods like DeepSCFold demonstrating improvements of 11.6% in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer for protein complex prediction [3]. Researchers are also working to push margins of error from less than two angstroms to less than one angstrom—the width of a single hydrogen atom—which could be crucial for drug development where small errors can critically impact predictions of how well drugs bind to their targets [22].

AlphaFold2 represents a landmark achievement in computational biology that has largely solved the 50-year-old protein folding problem for single-domain proteins. Its novel architecture, combining the Evoformer's evolutionary reasoning with the structure module's geometric precision, enabled atomic-level accuracy that dramatically accelerated structural biology research. The system's impact extends across basic research, drug discovery, and protein design, with over 200 million structures predicted and available to the scientific community [19] [23].

While challenges remain—particularly for complexes, dynamics, and orphan proteins—AlphaFold2's core innovations have established a new paradigm for AI-driven scientific discovery. Its success has inspired a new generation of biological AI tools and demonstrated the potential for artificial intelligence to accelerate fundamental scientific breakthroughs, ultimately bringing us closer to a comprehensive understanding of life's molecular machinery.

The three-dimensional structure of a protein is fundamentally linked to its biological function, and accurate structural models are indispensable for understanding disease mechanisms and facilitating drug discovery. Proteins perform essential life activities by interacting to form complexes, and determining these protein complex structures is crucial for understanding and mastering biological functions [3]. The remarkable accuracy achieved by modern protein structure prediction tools, such as AlphaFold, has revolutionized structural biology by providing reliable models for billions of protein sequences [17] [4]. However, the initial breakthrough in predicting protein monomeric structures represented only the beginning, as accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the structures of protein complexes remains a formidable challenge with significant implications for understanding function and disease [3].

Accuracy in protein structure prediction is not merely a theoretical concern but has profound practical consequences for biomedical research. Inaccurate structural models can lead researchers down unproductive experimental pathways, misdirect drug design efforts, and hinder our understanding of disease mechanisms at the molecular level. This technical guide examines the critical importance of prediction accuracy, the methodologies driving improvements, and the tangible impact on linking protein structure to biological function and human disease.

The Accuracy Challenge in Protein Complex Prediction

The Limitations of Current Approaches

While AlphaFold2 made a revolutionary breakthrough in predicting protein monomeric structures, accurately modeling protein complexes presents additional challenges. Predicting the quaternary structure of a protein complex is significantly more challenging than predicting the tertiary structure of a single protein monomer, as it necessitates the accurate modeling of both intra-chain and inter-chain residue-residue interactions among multiple protein chains [3]. This complexity is particularly evident in systems such as antibody-antigen complexes and virus-host interactions, where traditional methods that rely on inter-chain co-evolutionary signals often fail due to the absence of clear co-evolution at the sequence level [3].

Traditional protein-protein docking methods, including tools such as ZDOCK, HADDOCK, and HDOCK, aim to identify optimal binding modes through energy minimization but face challenges due to the complexity of conformational sampling, the inaccuracy of energy functions, and the inherent flexibility of proteins in the interface regions [3]. Similarly, template-based homology modeling is effective only when high-quality templates are available, which is often not the case for many target complexes [3].

Quantitative Benchmarks of Current Methods

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein Complex Structure Prediction Methods on CASP15 Targets

Method	TM-score Improvement	Key Strengths	Limitations
DeepSCFold	Baseline (11.6% and 10.3% improvement over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3)	Effectively captures intrinsic protein-protein interaction patterns; superior for antibody-antigen interfaces	Requires extensive computational resources
AlphaFold-Multimer	Reference	Significant improvement over monomeric AlphaFold2 for complexes	Lower accuracy than monomer predictions
AlphaFold3	Reference	Integrated approach for molecular complexes	Limited performance in challenging interface predictions
Yang-Multimer	Competitive in CASP15	Extensive sampling strategies	Variable performance across complex types

Table 2: Antibody-Antigen Interface Prediction Success Rates (SAbDab Database)

Method	Success Rate	Improvement Over Baseline	Applicability
DeepSCFold	Highest	24.7% over AlphaFold-Multimer; 12.4% over AlphaFold3	Ideal for challenging interfaces lacking co-evolution
AlphaFold-Multimer	Moderate	Baseline	General protein complexes
AlphaFold3	Good	Reference	Various molecular complexes

Recent advances in protein complex prediction demonstrate significant progress in addressing these accuracy challenges. For multimer targets from CASP15, DeepSCFold achieves an improvement of 11.6% and 10.3% in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [3]. Furthermore, when applied to antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhances the prediction success rate for antibody-antigen binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [3]. These improvements demonstrate how novel approaches that leverage structural complementarity information can compensate for the absence of co-evolutionary signals in challenging complexes.

Methodological Advances Driving Accuracy Improvements

Novel Architectures for Enhanced Complex Prediction

The DeepSCFold pipeline represents a significant methodological advancement for improving protein complex structure modeling. This approach uses sequence-based deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) and interaction probability (pIA-score) purely from sequence information, providing a foundation for identifying interaction partners and constructing deep paired multiple-sequence alignments (MSAs) for protein complex structure prediction [3]. Unlike methods that rely solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals, DeepSCFold effectively captures intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns through sequence-derived structure-aware information [3].

The fundamental innovation underlying these advances is the recognition that protein structures are generally more functionally conserved than their corresponding sequences due to their direct involvement in mediating biological processes. This evolutionary conservation is particularly evident at the structural level of protein-protein interactions (PPIs), where interaction interfaces tend to be more conserved than sequence motifs [3]. Extensive experimental evidence suggests that the repertoire of protein interaction modes in nature is remarkably limited, with similar structural binding patterns observed across diverse PPIs [3].

Workflow for High-Accuracy Complex Structure Prediction

Diagram 1: High-Accuracy Protein Complex Prediction Workflow. This workflow illustrates the DeepSCFold protocol for protein complex structure modeling, integrating sequence-based structural similarity and interaction probability predictions with traditional MSA approaches.

Experimental Protocols for Structure Determination

DeepSCFold Protocol for Complex Structure Prediction

The DeepSCFold protocol begins with input protein complex sequences, from which it first generates monomeric multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) from multiple sequence databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [3]. The predicted pSS-score, which quantifies the structural similarity between the input sequence and its corresponding homologs in the monomeric MSAs, is employed as a complementary metric to traditional sequence similarity, thereby enhancing the ranking and selection process of monomeric MSAs [3]. Subsequently, the deep learning model predicts the pIA-scores for each potential pair of sequence homologs derived from distinct subunit MSAs, and these interaction probabilities are utilized to systematically concatenate monomeric homologs and construct paired MSAs, enabling the identification of biologically relevant interaction patterns [3]. Additionally, multi-source biological information including species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, and experimentally determined protein complexes from the PDB are integrated to construct additional paired MSAs with enhanced biological relevance [3]. Finally, DeepSCFold uses the series of paired MSAs constructed above to perform complex structure predictions through AlphaFold-Multimer, with the top-1 model selected based on an in-house complex model quality assessment method called DeepUMQA-X, which is then used as the input template of AlphaFold-Multimer for one iteration to generate the final output structure [3].

Molecular Dynamics Refinement Protocol

For structure refinement, molecular dynamics (MD) simulation protocols have shown promise but face specific challenges. Refinement is the last step in protein structure prediction pipelines to convert approximate homology models to experimental accuracy [24]. Protocols based on MD simulations can achieve experimental accuracy but are limited by a rough energy landscape between homology models and native structures [24]. In all cases studied, native states were found very close to the experimental structures and at the lowest free energies, but refinement was hindered by kinetic barriers requiring at least microsecond time scales to cross [24]. A significant energetic driving force toward the native state was lacking until its immediate vicinity, and there was significant sampling of off-pathway states competing for productive refinement [24].

Table 3: Key Research Resources for Protein Structure Prediction and Validation

Resource	Type	Function	Access
AlphaSync Database	Database	Provides continuously updated predicted protein structures with additional pre-computed data	https://alphasync.stjude.org/
UniProt	Database	Largest database of protein sequences used for updating structural predictions	Public
DeepSCFold	Software Pipeline	Predicts protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability from sequence	Research Implementation
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Predicts protein complex structures using paired MSAs	Public
SAbDab	Database	Curated antibody-antigen complexes for benchmarking	Public
PDB	Database	Experimentally determined protein structures for validation	Public
Molecular Dynamics Software	Software	Refines approximate homology models to experimental accuracy	Various

The AlphaSync database represents a significant advancement in maintaining prediction accuracy over time, addressing a critical challenge in the rapidly evolving field of structural bioinformatics. Scientists at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital created this database to provide updated predicted structures on a regular basis, ensuring scientists can work with the most current information [4]. This resource improves upon existing protein structure prediction resources through continuous updating, maintaining a database of 2.6 million predicted protein structures across hundreds of species and updating as soon as new or modified sequences are available [4]. When the researchers first performed this task, they found a backlog of 60,000 structures that were outdated, including 3% of human proteins, highlighting the importance of continuous updating for maintaining accuracy [4].

In addition to updating structures, the AlphaSync database provides pre-computed data including residue interaction networks (which amino acid contacts each other), surface area (whether an amino acid is accessible or not), and conformational state (whether the amino acid is in a structured or unstructured region) [4]. The database also offers a simplified 2D tabular format of the complex 3D structural information to empower researchers to make discoveries and facilitate downstream machine learning applications [4]. This comprehensive approach ensures that researchers have access to not only updated structures but also the derived features essential for understanding protein function and disease mechanisms.

Linking Accuracy to Functional Insights and Therapeutic Development

From Structural Accuracy to Biological Function

Accurate protein structures serve as the foundation for understanding biological function at the molecular level. The remarkable accuracy achieved by AlphaFold in CASP14 demonstrated that computational approaches could regularly predict protein structures with atomic accuracy even in cases in which no similar structure is known [17]. AlphaFold structures had a median backbone accuracy of 0.96 Å r.m.s.d.95 (Cα root-mean-square deviation at 95% residue coverage) whereas the next best performing method had a median backbone accuracy of 2.8 Å r.m.s.d.95 [17]. This level of accuracy is significant because the width of a carbon atom is approximately 1.4 Å, meaning that these predictions approach atomic-level precision [17]. Such precision enables researchers to confidently analyze functional elements including active sites, binding interfaces, and allosteric regulatory sites.

The connection between accurate structures and functional insights becomes particularly important when studying disease mechanisms. Mutations associated with diseases often cause their effects by disrupting protein folding, stability, or interaction interfaces. With accurate structural models, researchers can distinguish between pathogenic mutations that structurally compromise protein function and benign variants that do not affect the protein's functional conformation. This capability is transforming how we approach the interpretation of genomic data in biomedical research.

Impact on Drug Discovery and Development

In drug discovery, accurate protein structures enable structure-based drug design, where compounds are strategically designed to interact with specific target sites. The accuracy of binding site characterization directly impacts the success of rational drug design campaigns. For example, accurate models of antibody-antigen interfaces, where DeepSCFold shows 24.7% improvement in success rate over AlphaFold-Multimer, can significantly advance the development of biologic therapeutics [3]. Similarly, accurate models of protein complexes involved in signal transduction pathways provide insights for developing targeted therapies that specifically disrupt pathogenic interactions.

The ability to predict structures for proteins that have proven difficult to characterize experimentally is particularly valuable for drug discovery targeting previously "undruggable" proteins. Accurate computational models provide structural insights for proteins that may not be amenable to conventional structure determination methods due to technical challenges such as membrane association, large size, or intrinsic flexibility. Furthermore, the continuous updating provided by resources like AlphaSync ensures that researchers are working with the most current structural information, minimizing the risk of basing drug design efforts on outdated or incorrect models [4].

Future Directions in Protein Structure Prediction Accuracy

The field of protein structure prediction continues to evolve rapidly, with several important directions emerging for further improving accuracy and utility. While current methods have made remarkable progress in predicting static structures, proteins are dynamic molecules, and future advances will need to capture conformational flexibility and allosteric transitions. Additionally, accurately predicting the effects of mutations, post-translational modifications, and environmental conditions on protein structure and function remains challenging.

Another important frontier is the integration of artificial intelligence-based structure prediction with experimental data from cryo-electron microscopy, X-ray crystallography, and nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy. Hybrid approaches that combine computational prediction with experimental validation will likely provide the most reliable structural models for complex biomedical research questions. As these methods continue to develop, the focus must remain on validating predictions against experimental data and establishing clear benchmarks for accuracy that directly relate to biological function and therapeutic applications.

The connection between accurate protein structure prediction and meaningful advances in understanding biological function and disease mechanisms will continue to drive the field forward. As methods improve and resources like AlphaSync make current structural information more accessible, researchers across biomedical disciplines will be increasingly empowered to leverage accurate structural models in their work, ultimately accelerating the development of new therapies for human diseases.

Next-Generation Methods: From Monomers to Complexes and Drug Targets

Protein structure prediction has been transformed by artificial intelligence, moving from a long-standing challenge to a routinely solvable problem. This whitepaper provides an in-depth technical analysis of three core architectures—AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, and ESMFold—that have driven this revolution. Understanding their distinct architectural philosophies and performance characteristics is fundamental to current research aimed at expanding the boundaries of prediction accuracy, especially for complex targets like multimers, flexible systems, and designed proteins.

Core Architectural Frameworks

AlphaFold2

AlphaFold2 (AF2) introduced a novel end-to-end deep learning architecture that jointly reasons about sequence, distance, and coordinates. Its system is built around several key innovations [17] [25]:

• Evoformer: The core of AF2's neural network is the Evoformer, a novel module that operates on two primary representations: a Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) representation and a pair representation. The Evoformer uses attention mechanisms to exchange information between these two representations, allowing the network to reason about evolutionary relationships and spatial constraints simultaneously. The pair representation is updated using triangular multiplicative updates that enforce geometric consistency, essentially learning the physical constraints of protein structures [17].
• Structure Module: This module takes the output from the Evoformer and generates atomic coordinates. It represents the protein structure as a set of rigid body frames for each residue and iteratively refines these frames to produce the final 3D coordinates. A key innovation is the use of equivariant transformations that respect the rotational and translational symmetry of 3D space [17].
• Recycling: The entire network employs an iterative refinement process where outputs are fed back as inputs, allowing the model to progressively improve its predictions. The loss function incorporates both backbone accuracy and side-chain conformations, with particular emphasis on the orientational correctness of residues [17].

Table 1: Core Specifications of AlphaFold2

Component	Architecture	Key Innovation	Primary Input
MSA Processing	Evoformer Stack	Axial Attention + Triangular Updates	MSA & Templates
Structure Generation	Equivariant Transformer	Iterative Refinement (Recycling)	Pair Representation
Output	Atomic Coordinates (all heavy atoms)	Frame-Based Representation	Implicit 3D Structure
Training Data	PDB, Evolutionary Sequences	Self-Distillation	170,000+ Structures

RoseTTAFold

RoseTTAFold adopts a three-track neural network architecture that simultaneously processes information at the one-dimensional (sequence), two-dimensional (distance), and three-dimensional (coordinate) levels [26]. This design allows the network to integrate information across these different representations:

• Three-Track Architecture: The 1D track processes sequence information, the 2D track processes residue-pair information, and the 3D track processes structural information. Cross-attention mechanisms between these tracks allow information to flow seamlessly from one representation to another [26].
• Sequence Space Diffusion: A recent extension, ProteinGenerator (PG), adapts RoseTTAFold for denoising diffusion probabilistic models (DDPMs) in sequence space. Unlike structure-space diffusion models that generate backbones first, PG begins with a noised sequence representation and simultaneously generates both protein sequences and structures through iterative denoising. This approach enables conditioning on both sequence and structural attributes during the generation process [26].

Table 2: Core Specifications of RoseTTAFold

Component	Architecture	Key Innovation	Primary Input
Backbone	Three-Track Network (1D, 2D, 3D)	Integrated Information Flow	MSA & Templates
Design Extension	ProteinGenerator (PG)	Sequence-Space Diffusion	Noised Sequence + Structural Constraints
Output	Sequence-Structure Pairs	Conditional Generation	Guided by Sequence/Structure Attributes
Training Data	PDB	Categorical Diffusion	Scaled One-Hot Tensors

ESMFold

ESMFold represents a fundamentally different approach that relies solely on sequence-based language models without the need for multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) or explicit evolutionary information [16]:

• Language Model Backbone: ESMFold is built upon the ESM-2 (Evolutionary Scale Modeling) protein language model, which is trained on millions of protein sequences to learn evolutionary patterns directly from single sequences. The model learns rich representations of protein sequences in an unsupervised manner, capturing structural and functional information that enables accurate structure prediction [16] [25].
• MSA-Free Prediction: By eliminating the computational bottleneck of generating MSAs, ESMFold can predict structures orders of magnitude faster than AF2, making it suitable for large-scale proteome analysis. The architecture directly maps sequence embeddings to 3D coordinates through a structure module similar to AF2's, but operating on single-sequence representations [16].

Table 3: Core Specifications of ESMFold

Component	Architecture	Key Innovation	Primary Input
Sequence Processing	ESM-2 Language Model	Single-Sequence Embedding	Raw Amino Acid Sequence
Structure Head	Transformer + Structure Module	Direct Coordinate Prediction	Sequence Representations
Output	Atomic Coordinates	MSA-Free	End-to-End Prediction
Training Data	UniRef	Self-Supervised Learning	65 Million Sequences

Performance Comparison and Accuracy Assessment

Quantitative Accuracy Metrics

The performance of these architectures has been rigorously benchmarked in blind tests and independent evaluations. The table below summarizes key quantitative comparisons.

Table 4: Performance Comparison Across Architectures

Architecture	CASP14 GDT_TS (Median)	Human Proteome pLDDT (>90)	Prediction Speed	MSA Dependency
AlphaFold2	92.4 (Global Distance Test)	~68% of models	Hours (with MSA)	High (MSA + Templates)
RoseTTAFold	~87.0 (Global Distance Test)	Data Not Specified	Moderate	High (MSA + Templates)
ESMFold	Not Applicable	~49% of models (when dissimilar to AF2)	Seconds (MSA-Free)	None (Single Sequence)

Independent evaluation on the human reference proteome reveals complementary strengths between AF2 and ESMFold. When both methods produce similar structures, AF2 models consistently achieve higher quality assessment scores. However, for proteins where the predictions differ significantly, ESMFold provides superior models for approximately 49% of cases according to a consensus of three quality assessment tools [16]. This suggests that ESMFold's MSA-free approach can capture structural information that may be missed by MSA-dependent methods in certain cases.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite their remarkable accuracy, these architectures face several important limitations [25] [27]:

• Conformational Dynamics: All three struggle with predicting multiple conformational states and fold-switching proteins. Evidence suggests that AF2's successful predictions of alternative conformations often depend on memorization from its training set rather than generative understanding of folding principles [27].
• Multimer Prediction: While extensions like AlphaFold-Multimer exist, accurately modeling protein complexes remains challenging due to difficulties in capturing inter-chain interactions [3].
• Accuracy Boundaries: AF2 achieves high accuracy (pLDDT > 90) for approximately two-thirds of proteins, but accuracy remains insufficient for about one-third of predictions, particularly for proteins with limited evolutionary information [20] [25].

Experimental Protocols and Methodologies

Standard Structure Prediction Protocol

A standardized workflow for protein structure prediction typically involves these key steps [17] [25]:

Title: Standard Protein Structure Prediction Workflow

Detailed Methodology:

• Input Preparation: Provide the amino acid sequence in standard FASTA format.
• MSA Construction: Search large sequence databases (UniRef, MGnify) using tools like HHblits or JackHMMER to generate multiple sequence alignments. For methods like ESMFold, this step is skipped [16].
• Feature Extraction: Convert the MSA and sequence information into numerical representations including:
  • MSA representation (Nseq × Nres)
  • Pair representation (Nres × Nres)
  • Template information (if available)
• Neural Network Processing: Pass features through the core architecture (Evoformer for AF2, three-track network for RoseTTAFold, language model for ESMFold).
• Structure Generation: The structure module generates atomic coordinates through iterative refinement.
• Output: Final 3D coordinates in PDB format with confidence estimates (pLDDT for AF2).

Advanced Protocol: Complex Structure Modeling with DeepSCFold

For modeling protein complexes, advanced protocols like DeepSCFold have been developed to enhance accuracy [3]:

Title: Protein Complex Modeling with DeepSCFold

Detailed Methodology [3]:

• Input Complex Sequences: Provide amino acid sequences for all interacting chains.
• Monomer MSA Generation: Generate individual MSAs for each subunit using standard tools.
• Structural Similarity Prediction: Use deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) from sequence alone.
• Interaction Probability Prediction: Predict interaction probabilities (pIA-score) between sequences from different monomer MSAs.
• Paired MSA Construction: Integrate pSS and pIA scores to systematically construct biologically relevant paired MSAs.
• Complex Structure Prediction: Run AlphaFold-Multimer with the constructed paired MSAs.
• Model Selection: Use DeepUMQA-X for model quality assessment and select the top model.
• Template-Based Refinement: Use the selected model as input template for one additional iteration to generate the final structure.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 5: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Function	Application Context
AlphaFold DB	Repository of pre-computed AF2 predictions for proteomes	Rapid structural annotation without computation
Protein Data Bank (PDB)	Primary source of experimental structures for training and validation	Ground truth for model training and accuracy assessment
UniProt/UniRef	Comprehensive protein sequence databases	MSA construction and evolutionary analysis
HHblits/JackHMMER	Sensitive sequence search tools	MSA construction from sequence databases
ESM-2 Language Model	Pre-trained protein language model	MSA-free structure prediction with ESMFold
RoseTTAFold All-Atom	Extended framework for biomolecular complexes	Prediction of protein-nucleic acid, small molecule interactions
ChimeraX/PyMOL	Molecular visualization software	Model analysis, validation, and figure generation
pLDDT/lDDT	Confidence and accuracy metrics	Model quality assessment and reliability estimation

The core architectures of AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, and ESMFold represent complementary approaches to the protein structure prediction problem. AF2's Evoformer-based architecture set a new standard for accuracy through sophisticated integration of evolutionary and structural information. RoseTTAFold's three-track architecture provides a flexible framework for both prediction and design. ESMFold demonstrates the power of language models to achieve remarkable accuracy without MSAs. Current research focuses on overcoming their limitations—particularly in predicting complexes, conformational dynamics, and designed proteins—through improved architectures, training strategies, and integration with experimental data. As these architectures continue to evolve, they will further expand the frontiers of protein structure prediction accuracy and its applications in biological research and drug development.

In living organisms, proteins perform key functions required for life activities by interacting to form complexes. Determining the protein complex structure is crucial for understanding and mastering biological functions [3]. Although AlphaFold2 made a revolutionary breakthrough in predicting protein monomeric structures, accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the structures of protein complexes remain a formidable challenge [3]. The paradigm of protein research is gradually shifting from static structures to dynamic conformations, making the prediction of complex quaternary structures an essential frontier in structural biology [28].

While deep learning has made significant progress in protein structure prediction, capturing dynamic conformational changes and sampling conformational space remain challenges in studying protein dynamics [28]. This challenge is particularly pronounced in protein complexes, where accurately modeling both intra-chain and inter-chain residue-residue interactions among multiple protein chains is necessary [3]. The limitations of current approaches become especially evident in drug discovery contexts, where small errors in predicted structures can be catastrophic for predicting how well a drug will bind to its target [22].

The Core Challenge: From Monomers to Complexes

The Evolutionary Leap in Structure Prediction

The field of computational protein structure prediction has witnessed remarkable advancements, culminating in sophisticated AI systems that have been recognized as breakthrough discoveries, earning the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry [29]. AlphaFold2's success in predicting monomeric structures with atomic accuracy represented a quantum leap forward, with its performance in the CASP14 competition being top-ranked by a large margin [23] [30]. However, this success with single proteins created new expectations for solving the more complex problem of protein interactions.

The fundamental challenge in predicting protein complexes lies in the astronomical number of possible interaction modes between protein chains. While AlphaFold Multimer extended the capability to structures containing more than one protein [22], researchers quickly discovered that the accuracy of multimer structure predictions remained considerably lower than that of AlphaFold2 for monomer structures [3]. As noted by John Jumper, Nobel laureate and AlphaFold lead, "This was not the only problem in biology. It's not like we were one protein structure away from curing any diseases" [22].

Key Technical Hurdles in Complex Prediction

Several fundamental technical challenges distinguish protein complex prediction from monomer prediction:

• Inter-chain Interaction Signals: Accurately capturing the evolutionary and physical signals between different protein chains, especially when clear co-evolutionary patterns are absent [3].
• Interface Flexibility: Modeling the inherent flexibility of proteins in the interface regions, which often undergo conformational changes upon binding [3] [28].
• Paired Multiple Sequence Alignments: Constructing accurate paired MSAs that can identify interaction partners across different protein chains [3].
• Limited Template Availability: The difficulty in obtaining suitable templates for most target complexes, making template-based homology modeling challenging [3].

These challenges are particularly evident in specific biological contexts. For virus-host and antibody-antigen systems, identifying inter-chain co-evolution is especially challenging due to the absence of species overlap between interacting proteins [3]. Similarly, in drug discovery applications, AlphaFold models have shown limitations in high-throughput docking due to small side-chain variations that significantly impact performance [31].

Methodological Approaches: From AlphaFold-Multimer to DeepSCFold

AlphaFold-Multimer Framework

AlphaFold-Multimer was developed as an extension of AlphaFold2 specifically tailored for protein multimer structure prediction, significantly improving the accuracy of complex predictions compared to previous docking-based methods [3]. The system employs a sophisticated neural network architecture built on transformer technology, which is particularly adept at paying attention to specific parts of a larger puzzle [22].

The key methodological advancement in AlphaFold-Multimer was its ability to process paired multiple sequence alignments (pMSAs) that enable the identification of inter-chain co-evolutionary signals between interacting partners [3]. This provides valuable insights into the dynamic behavior and stability of molecular interactions within the protein complex. However, popular sequence search tools such as HHblits, Jackhammer, and MMseqs are primarily designed for constructing monomeric MSAs and cannot be directly applied to optimal paired MSA construction [3].

DeepSCFold's Novel Architecture

DeepSCFold represents a significant methodological advancement by addressing fundamental limitations in existing protein complex prediction pipelines. Rather than relying solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals, DeepSCFold uses sequence-based deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability, providing a foundation for identifying interaction partners and constructing deep paired multiple-sequence alignments for protein complex structure prediction [3].

The core innovation of DeepSCFold lies in its two deep learning models that operate directly on sequence information:

• pSS-score: Predicts protein-protein structural similarity purely from sequence information
• pIA-score: Estimates interaction probability based solely on sequence-level features [3]

These models enable the inference of structural and interaction properties without relying on prior structural knowledge, making DeepSCFold uniquely capable of modeling complex interactions from sequence data alone, even in cases lacking clear co-evolutionary signals [3].

Comparative Workflow Analysis

The fundamental differences between standard AlphaFold-Multimer and DeepSCFold approaches can be visualized in their respective workflows:

Experimental Protocols and Benchmarking

Standardized Evaluation Frameworks

The performance of protein complex prediction methods is typically evaluated using standardized benchmarks from the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) competitions, which provide blind testing on experimentally determined but unpublished structures [3] [30]. For the CASP15 evaluation, DeepSCFold used protein sequence databases available up to May 2022, ensuring a temporally unbiased assessment of predictive capabilities [3].

The primary metrics used in these evaluations include:

• TM-score: Measures global structural similarity, with higher values indicating better accuracy
• Interface TM-score: Specifically assesses accuracy at binding interfaces
• Success Rate: The percentage of cases where prediction meets acceptable accuracy thresholds
• pLDDT: Per-residue confidence metric ranging from 0-100 [3]

For antibody-antigen complexes, additional specialized metrics focus on binding interface accuracy, which is particularly challenging due to the absence of clear co-evolutionary signals between antibodies and antigens [3].

Quantitative Performance Comparison

The table below summarizes the performance comparison between DeepSCFold and state-of-the-art methods on standardized benchmarks:

Table 1: Performance Comparison on CASP15 Multimer Targets

Method	TM-score Improvement	Key Strengths	Limitations
DeepSCFold	11.6% over AlphaFold-Multimer; 10.3% over AlphaFold3	Superior interface prediction; handles non-coevolutionary complexes	Computational intensity for large-scale screening
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline	Robust framework; good general performance	Limited accuracy for flexible interfaces
AlphaFold3	Reference point	Fast prediction speed; broad biomolecular coverage	Lower interface accuracy than DeepSCFold
Yang-Multimer	Moderate improvement over baseline	Enhanced sampling strategies	Dependent on quality of monomeric MSAs

Table 2: Antibody-Antigen Complex Prediction Success Rates

Method	Success Rate Improvement	Interface Accuracy	Application Scope
DeepSCFold	24.7% over AlphaFold-Multimer; 12.4% over AlphaFold3	High accuracy for binding interfaces	Broad applicability including non-coevolutionary systems
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline	Moderate interface accuracy	Limited for antibody-antigen cases
Traditional Docking	Lower than deep learning methods	Variable depending on flexibility handling	Requires high-quality monomer structures

Detailed Experimental Protocol: DeepSCFold Implementation

For researchers seeking to implement DeepSCFold methodology, the following protocol outlines the key steps:

Step 1: Monomeric MSA Generation

• Input protein complex sequences for all chains
• Generate monomeric multiple sequence alignments from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB)
• Use standard tools (HHblits, Jackhammer, MMseqs) for initial homology detection [3]

Step 2: Structural Similarity Assessment

• Apply the pSS-score deep learning model to quantify structural similarity between input sequence and homologs in monomeric MSAs
• Use pSS-score as complementary metric to traditional sequence similarity for enhanced ranking and selection of monomeric MSAs [3]

Step 3: Interaction Probability Prediction

• Utilize the pIA-score deep learning model to predict interaction probabilities for potential pairs of sequence homologs from distinct subunit MSAs
• Generate interaction probability matrix across all potential pairs [3]

Step 4: Paired MSA Construction

• Systematically concatenate monomeric homologs using interaction probabilities to construct paired MSAs
• Integrate multi-source biological information (species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, experimentally determined complexes from PDB)
• Generate multiple paired MSA versions with varying biological relevance [3]

Step 5: Complex Structure Prediction

• Use the series of constructed paired MSAs for complex structure predictions through AlphaFold-Multimer
• Generate multiple models with different paired MSA combinations
• Select top-1 model using DeepUMQA-X complex model quality assessment method
• Use selected model as input template for one additional AlphaFold-Multimer iteration to generate final output structure [3]

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Complex Prediction

Resource	Type	Function	Access
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Protein complex structure prediction	Open source
DeepSCFold	Software	Enhanced complex prediction via structural complementarity	Research publication
ColabFold	Platform	Rapid MSA generation and structure prediction	Web server/API
UniProt	Database	Protein sequences and annotations	Public database
AlphaFold DB	Database	Over 200 million precomputed structures	Public database
PDB	Database	Experimentally determined structures	Public database
SAbDab	Database	Antibody-antigen complex structures	Public database
ATLAS	Database	Molecular dynamics trajectories	Public database
GPCRmd	Database	GPCR molecular dynamics data	Public database

Future Directions and Research Applications

Integration with Dynamic Conformation Prediction

The next frontier in protein complex prediction involves moving beyond static structures to dynamic conformational ensembles. Proteins should not be viewed as static entities but as conformational ensembles that mediate various functional states [28]. Recent approaches based on AlphaFold2 attempt to capture conformational diversity by modifying model inputs, including MSA masking, subsampling, and clustering to capture different co-evolutionary relationships [28].

Generative models leveraging techniques like diffusion and flow matching have emerged as powerful tools for predicting protein multiple conformations [28]. Unlike MSA-based methods, these models transform protein structure prediction into a sequence-to-structure generation through iterative denoising, potentially allowing for sampling of effectively diverse and functionally relevant structures [28].

Drug Discovery Applications

In drug discovery contexts, the limitations of current AlphaFold models for high-throughput docking present both a challenge and opportunity for improvement [31]. Research indicates that even on very accurate models, small side-chain variations impact performance in virtual screening [31]. This suggests that refinement of AF models might be crucial to maximize the chances of success in high-throughput docking [31].

Several startups and university labs are building on AlphaFold's success to develop more tailored drug discovery tools. Recent innovations include:

• Boltz-2: A model from MIT and Recursion that predicts both protein structures and how well potential drug molecules will bind to their target [22]
• Pearl: An interactive model from Genesis Molecular AI that allows drug developers to feed additional data to guide predictions [22]
• FragFold: A method that employs AlphaFold to predict protein fragment binding to full-length proteins in high-throughput manner [32]

Conceptual Advancements in Structural Biology

The relationship between protein complex prediction methods and fundamental biological principles can be visualized as follows:

The development of AlphaFold-Multimer and its subsequent enhancement through approaches like DeepSCFold represents a significant advancement in protein complex structure prediction. By moving beyond purely sequence-based co-evolutionary signals to incorporate structural complementarity information, these methods offer improved accuracy for challenging targets like antibody-antigen complexes [3]. However, important limitations remain, particularly in capturing the full dynamic reality of proteins in their native biological environments [29] [28].

The future of protein complex prediction likely lies in integrating the deep but narrow power of specialized structure prediction systems with the broad sweep of large language models and physical principles [22] [33]. As the field progresses from predicting static structures to modeling dynamic conformational ensembles, these tools will become increasingly valuable for understanding biological function and accelerating drug discovery. The rapid pace of innovation in this space suggests that current limitations will continue to be addressed through both algorithmic improvements and better integration of fundamental biological principles.

The prediction of protein-nucleic acid (NA) complex structures represents one of the most significant challenges in structural bioinformatics. While deep learning has revolutionized protein structure prediction, accurately modeling interactions between proteins and DNA/RNA has proven more difficult due to the unique geometric, physicochemical, and evolutionary properties of nucleic acids. This technical guide examines RoseTTAFoldNA (RFNA) as a solution to this challenge, exploring its architecture, performance capabilities, and methodological applications. We place these developments within the broader context of protein structure prediction accuracy research, highlighting how RFNA expands the computational toolbox for researchers and drug development professionals seeking to understand macromolecular interactions at atomic resolution.

Protein-nucleic acid interactions form the cornerstone of numerous essential biological processes, including gene expression, DNA replication, transcription, splicing, and protein translation [34]. Despite their fundamental importance, our structural knowledge of protein-NA complexes lags significantly behind that of proteins and protein-protein complexes. As of 2025, only approximately 14,750 protein-NA complex structures are available in the Protein Data Bank (PDB), dramatically fewer than available protein structures [34]. This scarcity stems from experimental difficulties in resolving these complexes and specific molecular properties that complicate computational approaches.

The challenges in protein-NA complex prediction are multifaceted. Nucleic acids exhibit a more hierarchical structural organization than proteins, with base composition determining secondary structure patterns that subsequently constrain the overall 3D fold [34]. The phosphate backbone is highly negatively charged and works in concert with base stacking interactions to drive NA folding—a process highly dependent on ionic strength and solution conditions. Crucially, the NA backbone is substantially more flexible than its protein counterpart, with 6 rotatable bonds per nucleotide versus only 2 per amino acid, greatly expanding the conformational space and enabling functional diversity through conformational switching [34].

These challenges are particularly pronounced for complexes containing single-stranded RNA regions, where RoseTTAFoldNA achieved correct interface modeling in only 1 out of 7 test cases, primarily limited by ssRNA flexibility [34]. This knowledge gap in protein-NA structural biology has stimulated the development of specialized computational methods, with RoseTTAFoldNA emerging as a pioneering deep learning approach specifically designed for this complex prediction task.

RoseTTAFoldNA Technical Architecture

Core Network Design

RoseTTAFoldNA builds upon the successful three-track neural network architecture of its predecessor, RoseTTAFold, which simultaneously processes patterns in protein sequences, amino acid interactions, and three-dimensional structural information [35]. This architecture enables seamless information flow between one-dimensional (1D) sequence, two-dimensional (2D) distance, and three-dimensional (3D) coordinate information, allowing the network to collectively reason about the relationship between a protein's chemical parts and its folded structure [35].

The RFNA implementation extends this framework through several key innovations:

• Dual MSA Processing: The network operates on both protein and nucleic acid multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) simultaneously, allowing it to capture evolutionary constraints from both molecular types [34].
• Geometric Integration: A dedicated track processes geometric relationships between protein and NA components, enabling the network to learn spatial constraints specific to molecular interactions [34].
• 3D Coordinate Refinement: An SE(3)-equivariant transformer refines initial 3D coordinates, maintaining rotational and translational invariance while optimizing atomic positions [34].

Architectural Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the core information processing workflow within RoseTTAFoldNA's three-track architecture:

Figure 1: RoseTTAFoldNA Three-Track Architecture. Information flows bidirectionally between 1D (sequence), 2D (geometry), and 3D (coordinate) tracks, enabling integrated reasoning about sequence-structure relationships in protein-NA complexes.

All-Atom Expansion

The RoseTTAFold framework has subsequently evolved into RoseTTAFold All-Atom, which expands modeling capabilities beyond proteins and nucleic acids to include small molecules, metals, and covalent modifications [36]. This extension is particularly valuable for drug discovery applications, as it enables researchers to model how proteins interact with small-molecule drugs within broader biological assemblies [36]. As noted by developers, "We've expanded our modeling capabilities beyond amino acids, which should bring clarity to new aspects of molecular biology. It's a bit like switching from black and white to a color TV" [36].

Performance Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis

Quantitative Assessment

Comprehensive benchmarking studies have evaluated RoseTTAFoldNA's performance against other leading methods, particularly AlphaFold3 (AF3). The table below summarizes key performance metrics from independent evaluations:

Table 1: Performance Comparison of Protein-NA Complex Prediction Methods

Method	TM-score (Average)	Success Rate (Low Homology)	Key Strengths	Key Limitations
RoseTTAFoldNA [34]	0.381 (protein-RNA)	19% (25 complex test set)	Extended to broad molecular context in RoseTTAFold-All-Atom [34]	Poor modeling of local basepair networks [34]
AlphaFold3 [34]	N/A	38% (25 complex test set)	Broad molecular context, diffusion framework for refinement [34]	Memorization of training data, modest accuracy beyond training set [34]
Traditional Methods [34]	Variable	Competitive with deep learning	Benefit from human expertise and refinement [34]	Require manual intervention, template availability [34]

The performance gap between RFNA and AF3 is notable, particularly for complexes with low homology to known structures. A comprehensive benchmarking study on over a hundred protein-RNA complexes confirmed that "AF3 outperforms RF2NA but its predictive accuracy remains modest, with an average TM-score of 0.381" [34]. Both methods struggle with modeling protein-NA complexes beyond their training data and capturing non-canonical contacts and cooperative interactions [34].

CASP16 Assessment Insights

The Critical Assessment of Techniques for Protein Structure Prediction (CASP16) provided rigorous independent evaluation of protein-NA interaction structure prediction methods. Notably, deep learning-based methods, including both RoseTTAFoldNA and AlphaFold3, failed to outperform more traditional approaches that incorporated human expertise [34]. The AF3 server was ranked 16th and 13th overall for protein-NA interface and hybrid complex prediction, with all superior performers adapting AF or RFNA architectures with expert manual intervention, deeper sequence searches combined with language model embeddings, better template identification, and refinement with classical docking or molecular dynamics simulations [34].

A significant limitation revealed in CASP16 was that "none identified residues involved in the interface for the two targets that lacked templates in the PDB, highlighting that protein-NA complex structure prediction still largely relies on the availability of homologous experimental structures as templates" [34].

Methodological Protocols

Standard Prediction Workflow

The typical workflow for predicting protein-NA complex structures using RoseTTAFoldNA involves sequential stages of data preparation, sequence analysis, structure generation, and model validation:

Figure 2: RoseTTAFoldNA Standard Prediction Workflow. The process begins with sequence input and progresses through evolutionary analysis, joint MSA processing, structure generation, and refinement stages.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Successful application of RoseTTAFoldNA requires specific computational tools and resources. The following table details essential components of the RFNA research toolkit:

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for RoseTTAFoldNA Implementation

Tool/Resource	Type	Function	Application Notes
HH-suite [37]	Software Suite	Generates Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs) using HHblits	Critical for evolutionary constraint detection; requires compilation from GitHub for optimal performance [37]
RoseTTAFoldNA Codebase [34]	Deep Learning Framework	Three-track neural network for protein-NA complex structure prediction	Available through GitHub; requires GPU acceleration for practical runtime [35]
SAbDab Database [37]	Structural Database	Provides antibody structures for training and benchmarking	Useful for generating non-redundant test sets with sequence identity cutoffs [37]
IMGT Database [37]	Sequence Database	Source for antibody sequences with standardized CDR definitions	Essential for consistent residue numbering and loop definition [37]
PDB [34]	Structural Repository	Source of experimental protein-NA complexes for training	Limited diversity of available complexes impacts training data quality [34]
SE(3)-Equivariant Transformer [34]	Algorithm	Refines 3D coordinates while maintaining rotational/translational invariance	Critical for generating physically plausible structures [34]

Advanced Applications: Integrating Experimental Data

For challenging targets, particularly those involving flexible nucleic acid elements, advanced protocols integrating experimental data are recommended:

• Hybrid Modeling Approaches: Combine RFNA predictions with experimental data from cryo-EM, SAXS, or chemical probing to constrain flexible regions [34].

• Molecular Dynamics Refinement: Use RFNA outputs as starting structures for molecular dynamics simulations to sample conformational flexibility and assess stability [34].

• Ensemble Generation: For single-stranded NA complexes, generate multiple models and cluster to represent conformational heterogeneity [34].

• Template-Augmented Prediction: When available, integrate experimental templates from related complexes to improve interface modeling accuracy [34].

Discussion: Future Directions and Research Opportunities

Despite its pioneering status, RoseTTAFoldNA represents only the beginning of protein-NA complex prediction capabilities. Several promising research directions emerge from current limitations:

Addressing Data Scarcity and Diversity

The scarcity and limited diversity of experimental protein-NA complex structures remains a fundamental challenge. Future efforts should focus on:

• Expanding Structural Coverage: Targeted experimental determination of underrepresented complex types, particularly those involving single-stranded RNA and dynamic interactions [34].
• Data Augmentation Strategies: Developing physics-based and knowledge-based methods to generate synthetic training data that captures NA flexibility and diversity [34].
• Integration of Complementary Data: Incorporating high-throughput interaction data (e.g., CLIP-seq, RIP-seq) to provide additional constraints for modeling [34].

Modeling Nucleic Acid Flexibility

The high flexibility of nucleic acids, particularly single-stranded regions, presents both a challenge and opportunity for methodological innovation:

• Ensemble-Based Approaches: Moving beyond single-structure prediction to generate conformational ensembles that represent dynamic behavior [34].
• Multi-State Modeling: Developing capabilities to model transitions between functional states, including allosteric regulation and induced-fit binding [34].
• Explicit Environment Modeling: Incorporating solvent effects, ion concentrations, and physiological conditions that significantly impact NA structure and stability [34].

Integration with Emerging Technologies

RoseTTAFoldNA's utility will expand through integration with complementary computational and experimental approaches:

• Language Model Embeddings: Leveraging protein and RNA language models to extract evolutionary signals without reliance on deep MSAs, particularly for orphan sequences [38].
• Generative Design Applications: Applying RFNA frameworks to nucleic acid design, enabling creation of RNAs and DNAs with programmed binding specificities [34].
• Multi-Scale Modeling: Bridging atomic-resolution predictions with mesoscale cellular organization to contextualize protein-NA interactions in broader biological processes [34].

RoseTTAFoldNA represents a significant milestone in the expansion of deep learning approaches from protein structure prediction to the more challenging realm of protein-nucleic acid complexes. While current accuracy remains limited—particularly for complexes with flexible elements or minimal evolutionary information—the method establishes a foundational architecture for future development. Its three-track framework enables integrated reasoning about sequence, geometry, and structure across molecular boundaries, offering researchers their first automated tool for probing these essential biological interactions.

The broader context of protein structure prediction accuracy research reveals a pattern of rapid initial breakthrough followed by extended refinement and domain expansion. RoseTTAFoldNA continues this trajectory, pushing beyond the protein-only paradigm to tackle the more complex landscape of multi-molecular assemblies. As with early protein prediction methods, its true potential will emerge through continued methodological refinements, expanding structural data, and integration with complementary experimental and computational approaches. For drug development professionals and basic researchers alike, RoseTTAFoldNA provides an essential starting point for investigating protein-NA interactions that underlie fundamental biological processes and therapeutic opportunities.

The field of antibody and drug discovery is undergoing a profound transformation, moving from a largely experimental discipline to an increasingly digital science. For decades, determining the three-dimensional structure of proteins—the fundamental machinery of life—was a monumental task, often taking years of painstaking experimental work [19]. This bottleneck severely constrained the pace of therapeutic development, particularly for complex biological drugs like antibodies. The emergence of accurate protein structure prediction, pioneered by AlphaFold2 five years ago, has fundamentally altered this landscape [39]. This AI-driven breakthrough provides researchers with reliable structural models for nearly any protein based solely on its amino acid sequence, democratizing access to structural insights that were previously inaccessible [39] [19]. This technical guide examines how these advances are accelerating antibody and drug target research, framing the discussion within the broader context of protein structure prediction accuracy research essential for therapeutic development.

Table: Key Milestones in AI-Driven Structural Biology for Therapeutic Development

Year	Development	Significance for Antibody/Drug Research
2018	First AlphaFold announced [39]	Limited initial impact due to lower accuracy
2020	AlphaFold2 achieves atomic accuracy [39] [19]	Solved 50-year protein folding problem; enabled reliable structure prediction
2021	AlphaFold database & code released [39]	Democratized access; 3.3M+ users in 190+ countries [39] [19]
2024	AlphaFold3 released [19]	Predicts interactions beyond proteins (DNA, RNA, ligands, antibodies)
2025	BoltzGen debut for binder generation [40]	First model to generate novel protein binders from scratch for undruggable targets

AI-Driven Revolution in Antibody Research

Trends in Therapeutic Antibody Engineering

The landscape of therapeutic antibodies is rapidly evolving beyond traditional monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) toward more complex and targeted formats. Bispecific antibodies (bsAbs) and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) now account for approximately 25% of new antibody approvals [41]. This shift is fundamentally enabled by computational approaches that allow researchers to design and model these sophisticated molecules with precision. While only three bsAbs were approved by the end of 2020, at least eleven more have gained approval since then, with many achieving blockbuster status [41]. This acceleration reflects the power of AI and structure prediction in designing molecules with novel mechanisms of action, such as physically bridging immune cells to cancer cells or simultaneously blocking multiple disease pathways [41].

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) and Structure-Informed Design

Antibody-drug conjugates represent one of the most promising advancements in targeted cancer therapy, combining the specificity of monoclonal antibodies with the potency of cytotoxic agents [41] [42]. The global ADC market is projected to grow from $7.55 billion in 2025 to $15.99 billion by 2030, reflecting a compound annual growth rate of 16.24% [42]. This growth is fueled by structural insights that enable optimization of all three ADC components: the antibody, linker, and payload. Structure prediction informs the engineering of bispecific ADCs that can recognize two different tumor antigens, increasing the likelihood of binding to and destroying a wider range of cancer cells while reducing off-target toxicity [41]. The integration of AI allows researchers to model how modifications to each component affect the overall structure, stability, and function of these complex therapeutic agents.

Nanobodies and Miniaturized Therapeutics

An emerging trend facilitated by structure prediction is the exploration of smaller antibody fragments, particularly nanobodies derived from camelids [41]. These single-domain antibodies offer significant advantages over conventional mAbs, including superior tissue penetration, high stability, and access to challenging epitopes that are inaccessible to larger antibodies [41]. Their simple, robust structure makes them ideal building blocks for creating more complex molecules and for targeting difficult-to-reach areas such as the central nervous system [41]. Accurate structure prediction is essential for designing these miniaturized therapeutics, as their stability and binding properties are highly dependent on their three-dimensional configuration.

Quantitative Impact Assessment

The integration of AI and protein structure prediction into biological research has yielded measurable improvements in the pace and quality of scientific output. An independent analysis by the Innovation Growth Lab found that researchers using AlphaFold2 saw an increase of over 40% in their submission of novel experimental protein structures to the Protein Data Bank (PDB) compared to a non-AlphaFold-using baseline [39] [19]. Furthermore, these structures were more likely to be dissimilar to known structures, encouraging exploration of uncharted scientific areas [19]. Perhaps most significantly for therapeutic development, research linked to AlphaFold2 is twice as likely to be cited in clinical articles and significantly more likely to be cited by patents than typical works in structural biology [19], indicating its substantial impact on translating basic research into practical applications.

Table: Quantitative Impact of AI Structure Prediction on Research Output

Metric Category	Specific Measure	Impact/Statistic
Research Output	PDB structure submissions [39]	50% more than non-AI baseline
	Novel structural exploration [19]	Increased likelihood of dissimilar structures
	Total scientific publications [19]	>35,000 papers citing AlphaFold
Clinical Translation	Citation in clinical articles [19]	2x more likely
	Patent citations [19]	Significant increase
Global Reach	Database users [39] [19]	3.3M+ researchers in 190 countries
	Users from low/middle-income countries [39]	>1 million users

Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

Workflow for Structure-Informed Antibody Discovery

The integration of AI-based structure prediction into antibody discovery follows a structured workflow that dramatically accelerates the traditional development process. This begins with target identification and validation, where AI algorithms analyze massive biological datasets to identify novel and "difficult-to-drug" targets on diseased cells [41]. Researchers then employ structure prediction tools like AlphaFold to generate accurate models of the target protein, followed by computational analysis to identify potential binding sites and epitopes [41]. For antibody design and optimization, machine learning models predict how antibody candidates will fold and bind to their target in silico, allowing for rapid design of antibodies with high affinity and stability [41]. The most promising candidates are then synthesized and validated through in vitro and in vivo testing, with experimental data feeding back to refine the computational models.

Advanced Accuracy Estimation with GCPNet-EMA

As computational predictions become integral to therapeutic development, accurately estimating the reliability of these models becomes crucial. The Geometry-Complete Perceptron Network for Estimation of Model Accuracy (GCPNet-EMA) represents a state-of-the-art approach that addresses this need [43]. This method utilizes geometric message passing neural networks to featurize 3D protein structures as combinations of scalar and vector-valued features, then applies layers of geometry-complete graph convolution to learn expressive geometric representations [43]. Through rigorous benchmarking, GCPNet-EMA has demonstrated 47% faster performance and over 10% higher correlation with ground-truth measures of per-residue structural accuracy compared to previous state-of-the-art methods, including AlphaFold 2's built-in accuracy estimates [43]. This enhanced accuracy assessment is particularly valuable for evaluating predicted structures of therapeutic targets where experimental validation is challenging.

Experimental Validation of AI-Generated Binders

The BoltzGen model exemplifies the next frontier of AI in therapeutic development: generating novel protein binders from scratch for previously "undruggable" targets [40]. Its validation followed a rigorous protocol involving 26 targets explicitly chosen for their dissimilarity to training data [40]. The model's constraints were designed with wet-lab collaborator feedback to ensure generated proteins obey physical and chemical laws [40]. Industry and academic partners then experimentally tested these AI-designed binders in wet-lab settings, with one industry collaborator (Parabilis Medicines) noting that adopting BoltzGen "promises to accelerate our progress to deliver transformational drugs against major human diseases" [40]. This comprehensive validation across eight independent wet-labs demonstrates the model's potential for breakthrough drug development, particularly for challenging targets that have resisted conventional approaches.

Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Modern antibody and drug target research relies on both wet-lab reagents and computational resources. The following table details key solutions essential for conducting structure-informed therapeutic development.

Table: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for AI-Accelerated Antibody Research

Tool/Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Function in Research Pipeline
Computational Structure Prediction	AlphaFold Server, AlphaFold3, AlphaSync Database [19] [4]	Provides protein structure predictions; AlphaSync ensures structures match current sequence data [4]
Generative AI & Binder Design	BoltzGen, AlphaProteo [40] [19]	Generates novel protein binders from scratch for undruggable targets [40]
Accuracy Estimation Tools	GCPNet-EMA [43]	Estimates reliability of predicted structures using geometric neural networks
Experimental Validation Assays	Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR), Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC)	Measures binding affinity and kinetics of designed antibodies
Cell-Based Functional Assays	Reporter gene assays, cytotoxicity assays, T-cell engagement assays (for bsAbs)	Validates mechanism of action for bispecific antibodies and other designed therapeutics
Specialized Animal Models	Humanized mouse models, non-human primates (regulated use)	In vivo efficacy and safety testing (increasingly supplemented by NAMs) [44]

Regulatory Evolution and Future Directions

The advances in protein structure prediction and AI-driven therapeutic design are coinciding with significant regulatory evolution. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has announced plans to phase out animal testing requirements for monoclonal antibodies and other drugs, replacing them with more human-relevant methods including AI-based computational models of toxicity and human cell-based testing systems [44]. This paradigm shift leverages the increasing predictive power of computational approaches to improve drug safety assessment while accelerating development timelines [44]. The FDA will implement a pilot program allowing select monoclonal antibody developers to use primarily non-animal-based testing strategies, with findings informing broader policy changes [44]. This regulatory evolution acknowledges the growing reliability of computational and human-based testing methods and their potential to better predict real-world human responses compared to traditional animal models.

Looking ahead, the field is moving beyond static protein structure prediction toward modeling complex biological interactions. AlphaFold3 can now predict the joint 3D structures of entire molecular complexes, allowing researchers to see how potential drug molecules bind to their target proteins or how proteins interact with genetic material [19]. This capability is particularly valuable for antibody research, as it enables visualization of how therapeutic antibodies engage with their targets at atomic resolution. As these tools continue to evolve, they promise to further accelerate the transformation of antibody and drug development from an empirically-driven process to an engineering discipline grounded in precise structural understanding.

Overcoming Challenges: Pushing the Boundaries of Prediction Quality

Protein complexes, constituting the quaternary structure of proteins, represent the architectural embodiment of functional cellular machinery. These complexes, formed by two or more protein molecules (subunits) interacting through non-covalent bonds, are indispensable for executing critical biological processes including signal transduction, transport, and metabolism [45] [46]. Determining the precise three-dimensional structure of these complexes is therefore crucial for understanding and manipulating biological functions at a molecular level. While revolutionary deep learning systems like AlphaFold2 have demonstrated remarkable accuracy in predicting the tertiary structures of single protein chains (monomers), accurately capturing the inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the structures of protein complexes remains a formidable challenge in the field [45] [47]. This persistent difficulty constitutes the core of the "protein complex challenge"—the accurate computational prediction of how multiple protein chains assemble into a functional unit through specific atomic-level interactions.

The significance of solving this challenge extends deep into pharmaceutical research and therapeutic development. Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are increasingly highlighted as promising therapeutic targets because the number of potential PPIs vastly exceeds the number of single protein drug targets, offering a largely unexplored frontier for drug discovery [48]. However, targeting PPIs with small molecule drugs presents unique challenges, as these interfaces tend to be larger, flatter, and more hydrophobic than traditional drug-binding pockets [48]. Consequently, accurate structural models of protein complexes are not merely academic exercises; they provide the essential blueprint for understanding disease mechanisms and designing targeted interventions.

Fundamental Hurdles in Protein Complex Prediction

Predicting the structure of protein complexes introduces multidimensional complexities beyond monomeric structure prediction. These challenges stem from both the physical nature of protein interactions and limitations in current computational methodologies.

Limitations in Capturing Evolutionary and Physical Signals

A primary methodology in modern protein structure prediction involves leveraging evolutionary information embedded in multiple sequence alignments (MSAs). For monomers, MSAs provide co-evolutionary signals that help constrain the folding landscape. For complexes, the ideal approach involves constructing paired MSAs that capture co-evolution across interacting chains, providing evidence of which sequences evolved together and likely interact [45]. However, popular sequence search tools like HHblits, Jackhammer, and MMseqs are primarily designed for constructing monomeric MSAs and cannot be directly applied to effective paired MSA construction [45]. This limitation is particularly acute for certain types of complexes, such as virus-host and antibody-antigen systems, which often lack clear inter-chain co-evolutionary signals at the sequence level due to the absence of species overlap [45].

From a physical perspective, protein-protein binding interfaces exhibit characteristics that complicate prediction. They are often transient and flexible, with binding sites sometimes formed by induced fit rather than pre-existing in apo structures [48]. This inherent flexibility contradicts the static structure prediction paradigm of many deep learning models. Furthermore, the energy landscapes of multi-chain assemblies are exponentially more complex than those of single chains, requiring accurate modeling of both strong intra-chain covalent forces and weak inter-chain non-covalent interactions simultaneously [45] [47].

Specific Challenging Scenarios

Certain classes of protein complexes present exceptional difficulties for current prediction methods:

• Antibody-Antigen Complexes: These systems often lack sequence-level co-evolution and exhibit high flexibility in complementary-determining regions, making interface prediction particularly challenging [45].
• Transmembrane Protein Complexes: Experimental determination of these structures is difficult due to membrane environments, resulting in limited training data. Their interfaces often involve specific helical packing arrangements driven by hydrophobic interactions and hydrogen bond networks [49].
• Multidomain Proteins: Approximately two-thirds of prokaryotic and four-fifths of eukaryotic proteins contain multiple domains [50]. Most prediction methods lack specialized multidomain processing modules, leading to inaccurate relative domain orientations and packing [50].
• Complexes with Multiple Conformational States: Many proteins adopt different quaternary structures depending on cellular conditions, a dynamic aspect that current static prediction methods cannot easily capture [47].

Cutting-Edge Methodologies and Experimental Protocols

To address the protein complex challenge, researchers have developed sophisticated computational protocols that extend beyond conventional monomeric structure prediction approaches. The following workflow diagram illustrates a comprehensive strategy for tackling protein complex prediction:

Advanced Protocols for Protein Complex Structure Modeling

DeepSCFold Protocol for High-Accuracy Complex Modeling

DeepSCFold represents a sophisticated pipeline that addresses the limitations of sequence-level co-evolutionary analysis by incorporating structure-aware information directly derived from sequences [45]. The protocol employs these key steps:

• Input Processing and Monomeric MSA Generation: Starting with input protein complex sequences, DeepSCFold first generates monomeric multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) by searching multiple sequence databases including UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and the ColabFold DB [45].

• Deep Learning-Based Feature Prediction: The core innovation of DeepSCFold involves two sequence-based deep learning models:

  • Protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score): Predicts structural similarity between query sequences and their homologs in monomeric MSAs, providing a complementary metric to traditional sequence similarity for ranking and selecting monomeric MSAs.
  • Interaction probability (pIA-score): Estimates interaction probabilities for potential pairs of sequence homologs derived from distinct subunit MSAs, enabling identification of biologically relevant interaction patterns [45].

• Paired MSA Construction: The predicted pSS-scores and pIA-scores are systematically employed to concatenate monomeric homologs and construct paired MSAs. This approach captures intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns through sequence-derived structure-aware information rather than relying solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals [45].

• Multi-Source Biological Integration: The protocol further integrates biological information including species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, and experimentally determined protein complexes from the PDB to construct additional paired MSAs with enhanced biological relevance [45].

• Structure Prediction and Refinement: Finally, DeepSCFold uses the series of constructed paired MSAs to perform complex structure predictions through AlphaFold-Multimer. The top model is selected using a specialized complex model quality assessment method (DeepUMQA-X) and used as an input template for one additional iteration to generate the final output structure [45].

DeepTMP for Transmembrane Protein Complexes

For transmembrane protein complexes, DeepTMP employs a specialized transfer learning approach to overcome data limitations [49]. The methodology involves:

• Initial Training on Soluble Complexes: An initial model is trained on a large dataset of homodimers consisting mainly of soluble protein complexes, learning general principles of inter-chain interactions.

• Transfer Learning on Membrane Proteins: The pre-trained model is fine-tuned on a limited set of transmembrane protein complexes, adapting the general interaction knowledge to the specific physicochemical environments of membrane proteins.

• Geometric Triangle-Aware Module: A key innovation in DeepTMP incorporates a geometric triangle-aware module that considers many-body effects using an attention mechanism on pair representations of three residues that satisfy geometric consistency, helping to reduce geometric inconsistency in predictions [49].

• Feature Integration: The method integrates evolutionary conservation from MSAs, coevolution information, sequence representations from protein language models (ESM-MSA-1b), and intra-protein distance maps from monomer structures (either experimental or AlphaFold2-predicted) [49].

Hybrid Physics-Deep Learning Approaches

Methods like D-I-TASSER represent a hybrid approach that integrates deep learning with physics-based simulations, particularly beneficial for multidomain proteins [50]. This protocol involves:

• Domain-Level Processing: Implementation of a domain partition and assembly module where domain boundary splitting, domain-level MSAs, threading alignments, and spatial restraints are created iteratively.

• Multisource Restraint Generation: Creation of spatial structural restraints by multiple deep learning tools including DeepPotential, AttentionPotential, and AlphaFold2, which leverage different neural network architectures (deep residual convolutional, self-attention transformer, and end-to-end networks).

• Replica-Exchange Monte Carlo Simulations: Assembly of full-length models using template fragments from multiple threading alignments through replica-exchange Monte Carlo simulations, guided by an optimized deep learning and knowledge-based force field that combines both data-driven and physics-based terms [50].

Quantitative Performance Comparison of State-of-the-Art Methods

The performance of advanced protein complex prediction methods has been rigorously benchmarked against established standards. The following tables summarize key quantitative comparisons across different complex types:

Table 1: Global Structure Prediction Accuracy on CASP15 Multimeric Targets (TM-score Improvement)

Method	Comparison Baseline	TM-score Improvement	Key Innovation
DeepSCFold	AlphaFold-Multimer	+11.6%	Sequence-based structural similarity and interaction probability [45]
DeepSCFold	AlphaFold3	+10.3%	Structure-aware paired MSA construction [45]
D-I-TASSER	AlphaFold2	+5.0%	Hybrid deep learning and physics-based simulations [50]
D-I-TASSER	AlphaFold3	+2.5%	Domain splitting and reassembly module [50]

Table 2: Binding Interface Prediction Accuracy on Antibody-Antigen Complexes (Success Rate Improvement)

Method	Comparison Baseline	Success Rate Improvement	Application Context
DeepSCFold	AlphaFold-Multimer	+24.7%	Challenging cases lacking co-evolution signals [45]
DeepSCFold	AlphaFold3	+12.4%	Antibody-antigen binding interface prediction [45]

Table 3: DeepTMP Performance on Transmembrane Protein Complexes (Inter-chain Contact Prediction Precision)

Predicted Contacts	DeepTMP with Experimental Structures	DeepTMP with AF2 Structures	Initial Training Model
Top 10	82.3%	76.5%	~59% (estimated) [49]
Top L/5	80.1%	72.5%	~57% (estimated) [49]
Top L	68.4%	62.3%	~45% (estimated) [49]

These quantitative results demonstrate that specialized approaches consistently outperform general-purpose methods across various complex types. The improvements are particularly pronounced for challenging cases that lack strong evolutionary signals or involve specific structural classes like transmembrane proteins.

Successful protein complex prediction requires leveraging a diverse array of computational tools and data resources. The following table catalogues essential components of the modern computational structural biologist's toolkit:

Table 4: Essential Resources for Protein Complex Structure Prediction

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function and Application
Sequence Databases	UniRef30/90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, ColabFold DB [45]	Provides evolutionary information via multiple sequence alignments for monomeric and paired MSA construction
Protein Language Models	ESM-MSA-1b [49]	Generates sequence representations and attention matrices capturing evolutionary relationships
Structure Prediction Engines	AlphaFold-Multimer [45], D-I-TASSER [50]	Core systems for generating 3D structural models from sequence and MSA inputs
Specialized Prediction Tools	DeepSCFold [45], DeepTMP [49]	Domain-specific methods optimized for particular complex types
Quality Assessment Methods	DeepUMQA-X [45]	Selects highest quality models from multiple predictions
Structure Databases	Protein Data Bank (PDB) [46], AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [51]	Source of experimental structures for training and template-based modeling
Interaction Databases	PDBTM [49]	Specialized repository for transmembrane protein structures

The accurate prediction of protein complex structures represents one of the most significant challenges in contemporary structural bioinformatics. While methods like AlphaFold-Multimer established a new baseline for complex structure prediction, recent advances incorporating structural similarity metrics, interaction probability assessments, transfer learning, and hybrid physics-deep learning approaches have demonstrated substantial improvements, particularly for the most challenging cases involving antibody-antigen complexes, transmembrane proteins, and multidomain assemblies [45] [49] [50].

The continuing evolution of protein complex prediction methodology points toward several promising future directions. These include the development of methods capable of predicting multiple conformational states of complexes, integration of experimental data from cryo-EM and cross-linking mass spectrometry, more sophisticated treatment of flexibility and dynamics in binding interfaces, and extension to higher-order assemblies involving non-protein molecules [47]. Furthermore, as the field matures, increasing emphasis will be placed on making these powerful tools accessible to non-specialists through user-friendly servers and databases.

As these methodologies continue to evolve and improve, they will progressively transform our understanding of cellular machinery at the molecular level and accelerate the development of novel therapeutics targeting protein-protein interactions. The solution to the protein complex challenge will ultimately enable a more comprehensive and dynamic view of the structural principles governing biological function.

Protein structure prediction has been revolutionized by deep learning, with accuracy for single-chain monomers now often considered a solved problem. However, predicting the quaternary structures of protein complexes remains a formidable challenge, crucial for understanding cellular functions and accelerating drug discovery. The core challenge lies in accurately capturing the subtle inter-chain interaction signals that dictate how proteins assemble. While methods like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 represent significant advances, their performance on complexes, particularly those lacking strong evolutionary signals, requires substantial improvement. This guide details advanced strategies that leverage structural complementarity and sophisticated paired multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) to address this gap, providing researchers with methodologies to significantly enhance prediction accuracy for protein complexes.

Core Concepts and Definitions

The Paired Multiple Sequence Alignment (pMSA)

In protein complex prediction, a paired MSA is not merely a concatenation of individual chain MSAs. It is a carefully constructed alignment where sequences from different subunits are paired based on evidence suggesting they have co-evolved or are likely to interact. This pairing is essential for the deep learning model to infer inter-chain co-evolutionary signals and residue-residue interactions across protein interfaces [3]. Traditional sequence search tools like HHblits and Jackhammer are designed for monomeric MSAs and cannot automatically construct these paired alignments, creating a bottleneck for accurate complex modeling [3].

Structural Complementarity

Structural complementarity is a fundamental principle describing the geometric and physicochemical "fit" between interacting protein surfaces. It goes beyond simple surface shape to include patterns of hydrophobic patches, hydrogen bonding, and electrostatic interactions [52]. In nature, the repertoire of protein interaction modes is remarkably limited, with similar structural binding patterns observed across diverse protein-protein interactions [3]. This conservation suggests that leveraging complementarity can provide strong constraints for complex structure prediction, especially for systems like antibody-antigen pairs that may not exhibit clear sequence-level co-evolution [3].

Advanced Methodologies

DeepSCFold: A Pipeline for High-Accuracy Complex Modeling

The DeepSCFold pipeline represents a significant advance by integrating sequence-based deep learning with structural complementarity principles.

Workflow Overview: The protocol begins with input protein complex sequences and generates monomeric MSAs from multiple sequence databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, Metaclust, etc.) [3]. Its innovation lies in two sequence-based deep learning models that filter and pair these homologs:

• pSS-score: Predicts protein-protein structural similarity, enhancing the ranking and selection of monomeric MSAs.
• pIA-score: Estimates the interaction probability between sequence homologs from distinct subunit MSAs [3].

These predicted probabilities, along with multi-source biological information (species annotations, UniProt accession numbers), are used to systematically concatenate monomeric homologs and construct high-quality paired MSAs. These pMSAs are then used by AlphaFold-Multimer for structure prediction, with the top model selected by an in-house quality assessment method and refined through an additional iteration [3].

Diagram: DeepSCFold Workflow for Protein Complex Structure Prediction

HECTOR: An Ultra-Fast Complementarity Detection Algorithm

For de novo binder design, the HECTOR (Highly Efficient Complementarity Testing by Obverse Residuals) algorithm provides a training-free solution for identifying scaffolds with highly complementary surface patches to a query epitope [52].

Key Technical Innovations:

• Invertible Surface Fingerprint: A key property of HECTOR is its ability to invert a query surface patch's fingerprint via a single transformation to describe the ideally complementary patch. This simplifies the docking problem to maximizing the similarity between the inverted query fingerprint and subject fingerprints in a database [52].
• Dimensionality Compression: The algorithm compresses 3D surface patches into a 2D matrix using a cylindrical basis projection. While lossy, this compression is essential for achieving rotational invariance and computational efficiency [52].
• Vectorized R-factor Calculation: The complementarity between query and subject surfaces is evaluated as an R-factor quantifying dissimilarity between matrices. This calculation is implemented on GPUs, achieving sub-microsecond evaluation times and enabling high-throughput docking against large structural databases [52].

Quantitative Performance Benchmarks

Advanced strategies leveraging structural complementarity and paired MSAs demonstrate substantial improvements over state-of-the-art methods in rigorous blind tests.

Table 1: Performance Improvement of DeepSCFold on CASP15 Multimer Targets

Evaluation Metric	AlphaFold-Multimer	AlphaFold3	DeepSCFold	Improvement over AF-Multimer	Improvement over AF3
TM-score	Baseline	Baseline	Higher	+11.6%	+10.3%

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

Method	Success Rate for Binding Interface Prediction
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline
AlphaFold3	Baseline
DeepSCFold	+24.7% over AF-Multimer, +12.4% over AF3

Table 3: Large-Scale Benchmarking with PSBench (CASP15/16)

Benchmark Aspect	PSBench Specification	Significance
Dataset Scale	>1 million structural models	Enables robust ML training
Target Diversity	79 complex targets, 25 stoichiometries	Represents diverse complex space
Model Generation	AlphaFold2-Multimer, AlphaFold3 (blind)	Real-world prediction setting
Quality Annotation	10 complementary scores per model	Comprehensive quality assessment

The PSBench resource, comprising over one million structural models from CASP15 and CASP16, provides a large-scale benchmark for developing and evaluating protein complex EMA methods. The models cover a wide range of sequence lengths, complex stoichiometries, and difficulty levels, offering an essential resource for training machine learning-based quality assessment tools [53].

Implementation Protocols

Protocol 1: Constructing Deep Paired MSAs with DeepSCFold

Objective: Build high-quality paired MSAs for a protein complex with known subunit sequences.

Materials and Reagents:

• Input: Amino acid sequences of all protein complex subunits in FASTA format.
• Sequence Databases: Access to UniRef30, UniRef90, UniProt, Metaclust, BFD, MGnify, and ColabFold DB [3].
• Software: DeepSCFold pipeline (available from original publication).
• Computing: High-performance computing cluster with GPU acceleration recommended.

Procedure:

• Generate Monomeric MSAs: For each subunit sequence, run the initial MSA generation against the sequence databases to collect homologous sequences.
• Calculate pSS-scores: Use the trained DeepSCFold deep learning model to predict the structural similarity (pSS-score) between the query sequence and its homologs. Use this score to re-rank and select the highest-quality monomeric MSAs.
• Calculate pIA-scores: For pairs of sequences from different subunit MSAs, predict their interaction probability using the pIA-score model.
• Construct Paired MSAs: Systematically concatenate sequences from different subunit MSAs, prioritizing pairs with high pIA-scores. Incorporate additional biological constraints (e.g., species annotation) to further refine pairing.
• Validate MSA Quality: The quality of the final paired MSAs can be indirectly validated by the resulting structure prediction accuracy in downstream steps [3].

Protocol 2: Leveraging Structural Complementarity with HECTOR

Objective: Identify protein scaffolds with high shape complementarity to a target epitope for de novo binder design.

Materials and Reagents:

• Input: A high-resolution 3D structure of the target protein with the epitope of interest defined.
• Scaffold Database: A cleaned library of high-resolution (e.g., <2.0 Å) X-ray structures from the PDB.
• Software: HECTOR algorithm for complementarity detection [52].
• Docking Software: PatchDock or similar local docking tool [52].
• Design Software: RosettaScripts framework for interface design [52].

Procedure:

• Surface Patch Preparation: Extract the dot-surface of the target epitope and the all-atom representations of scaffold structures from the database.
• Fingerprint Generation and Inversion: Tessellate the epitope surface into overlapping patches. Forward-map scaffold surface patches to HECTOR fingerprints. Inverse-map the query epitope patch.
• Complementarity Screening: Dock the inverse query fingerprint against the database of forward scaffold fingerprints by calculating the R-factor. Identify top hits with the lowest R-factor values, indicating highest complementarity.
• Pose Generation and Refinement: Use traditional docking software (e.g., PatchDock) with the top complementary scaffolds to generate initial complex models.
• Interface Design: Design the scaffold interface using RosettaScripts, mutating residues near the target surface (Cα distance ≤ 8 Å) to optimize interactions [52].

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools

Tool/Resource	Type	Function in Research	Key Application
DeepSCFold	Software Pipeline	Constructs pMSAs using sequence-derived structural complementarity & interaction probability	Enhancing AF-Multimer predictions for complexes
HECTOR	Algorithm	Ultra-fast evaluation of surface complementarity for docking	De novo binder design against target epitopes
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Deep learning-based structure prediction for protein complexes	Core structure prediction engine
PSBench	Benchmark Dataset	>1M labeled complex models for training & testing EMA methods	Developing model quality assessment tools
DeepMSA2	Software Pipeline	Hierarchical MSA construction using genomic/metagenomic databases	Improving input MSA quality for deep learning predictors
UniRef30/90	Database	Non-redundant clustered sequence datasets	Source of homologous sequences for MSA construction
Metaclust	Database	Large-scale metagenomic protein sequence collection	Increasing depth and diversity of MSAs
Protein Data Bank	Database	Repository of experimentally determined 3D structures	Source of templates & training data for algorithms

Applications in Drug Discovery and Design

The application of these advanced strategies is particularly impactful in therapeutic development, where targeting specific protein-protein interactions is crucial.

Case Study: Designing VEGF Inhibitors Using the HECTOR pipeline, researchers designed de novo binders targeting the receptor-binding site of Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), a key oncogenic target [52]. The process involved:

• Identifying two surface patches at VEGF's receptor-binding site.
• Using HECTOR to screen a PDB subset for scaffolds with high shape complementarity, yielding top hits including a bacterial ketosteroid isomerase (PDB: 1OH0) and a nitrophorin (PDB: 1PM1).
• Performing interface design with RosettaScripts on these scaffolds.
• Experimental characterization of 24 candidates identified nanomolar binders, with several designs showing significant tumor-inhibiting activity in vivo [52].

This case demonstrates how complementarity-first approaches can generate potent therapeutic candidates with high efficiency, obviating the need for extensive empirical optimization.

The integration of structural complementarity principles with advanced paired MSA construction represents the frontier of protein complex structure prediction. Methods like DeepSCFold and HECTOR demonstrate that moving beyond purely sequence-based co-evolutionary signals to incorporate physical and structural constraints yields substantial gains in accuracy, particularly for challenging targets like antibody-antigen complexes and de novo designed binders. As these strategies mature and are integrated with other emerging technologies like RFdiffusion [54], they will dramatically accelerate our ability to model and manipulate biological complexes, fundamentally advancing drug discovery and functional proteomics.

The advent of deep learning-based protein structure prediction tools, notably AlphaFold2, has fundamentally transformed structural biology. However, the static nature of initial databases created a critical bottleneck: predicted models rapidly became obsolete as protein sequence databases expanded and were corrected. This whitepaper examines the necessity of continuous updating within protein structure prediction accuracy research, using the AlphaSync database as a primary case study. We detail how synchronization with sequence databases, complemented by residue-level functional annotations, addresses this challenge. Furthermore, we explore the evolving frontier of predicting protein complexes and conformational diversity, areas where accuracy remains a active focus. The integration of continuously updated resources like AlphaSync into the research workflow is not merely a convenience but a fundamental requirement for ensuring that computational models reflect the most current biological knowledge, thereby accelerating biomedical discovery and therapeutic development.

Protein structure prediction has been revolutionized by artificial intelligence, with AlphaFold2 demonstrating accuracies comparable to experimental methods for many proteins [4]. This breakthrough led to the public release of millions of predicted structures, empowering researchers worldwide. However, a significant limitation emerged: these initial resources were largely static snapshots. The Universal Protein Resource (UniProt), the world's largest protein sequence database, is in a constant state of flux. New sequences are deposited, and existing entries are refined or corrected as new experimental evidence accumulates [4] [55].

When a protein's sequence in UniProt changes, any structural model predicted from the outdated sequence no longer accurately represents the protein. This discrepancy can lead to cascading errors in downstream analyses, from misinterpreting functional mechanisms to flawed assessments of the impact of genetic variants. A static prediction database thus becomes progressively less accurate over time. Investigators at St. Jude Children's Research Hospital identified this issue, finding a backlog of 60,000 outdated structures, including 3% of human proteins, at the time of establishing their AlphaSync database [4]. This "update gap" represents a critical challenge in the broader research field of protein structure prediction accuracy, which strives not only for high initial precision but also for the sustained biological relevance of models over time.

AlphaSync: A Paradigm for Continuous Synchronization

AlphaSync was developed explicitly to solve the problem of outdated protein structure models. It is a comprehensive database that provides 2.6 million predicted protein structures across hundreds of species, with a core architecture designed for continuous updating [4] [55].

Core Methodology and Workflow

The operational pipeline of AlphaSync is built on a continuous synchronization loop with UniProt. The following diagram illustrates this automated workflow:

The workflow is initiated by regularly querying the UniProt database for new or modified protein sequences [4]. For any identified change, the system automatically triggers a new structure prediction using AlphaFold2. This process requires substantial computational power but ensures the database remains current [4]. A key differentiator of AlphaSync is the subsequent step: generating detailed, pre-computed residue-level annotations. Finally, the database is updated, making the new structural models and their annotations immediately available to researchers through a web interface or an API (Application Programming Interface) [55].

Enhanced Data Outputs and Annotations

Beyond the updated 3D coordinates, AlphaSync enriches its predictions with several computed features that are crucial for in-depth analysis [4]:

• Residue Interaction Networks: Maps which amino acids are in contact with each other within the protein structure.
• Surface Accessibility: Indicates whether an amino acid is buried within the protein core or accessible on the surface, which is critical for understanding interaction and binding sites.
• Disorder Status: Predicts whether a region of the protein is structurally disordered, a key feature for many regulatory proteins.
• Simplified 2D Tabular Format: To empower researchers, especially those in machine learning, AlphaSync provides a simplified 2D, table-like format of the structural data. This format is more amenable to downstream computational analysis and data mining than complex 3D coordinate files [4].

Table 1: Key Features and Outputs of the AlphaSync Database

Feature	Description	Research Utility
Synchronization	Automatic updates triggered by changes in UniProt [4].	Ensures structural models match the latest sequence data.
Scale	2.6 million structures across >200 species [4] [55].	Broad coverage of proteomes for comparative studies.
Residue Annotations	Interaction networks, surface accessibility, disorder [4].	Enables deep functional analysis and variant impact assessment.
Data Format	Standard 3D PDB files and simplified 2D tables [4].	Facilitates both visualization and large-scale ML analysis.

The Expanding Frontier: Accuracy in Protein Complexes and Conformational States

While updating single-chain (monomeric) protein models is a vital step, the quest for prediction accuracy extends into more complex territories. A significant portion of proteins perform their functions by interacting with other molecules to form complexes. Accurately predicting the structure of these assemblies remains a formidable challenge [3].

The Challenge of Protein Complexes

Deep learning methods like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 have made strides in predicting protein-protein complexes. However, their accuracy for multimers is notably lower than for monomers [3]. Key difficulties include accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling the interfaces, especially in flexible systems like antibody-antigen complexes [3].

Novel approaches are being developed to address these limitations. For instance, DeepSCFold is a recently reported pipeline that enhances complex structure modeling by leveraging sequence-derived structural complementarity and interaction probability, rather than relying solely on sequence co-evolution [3]. This method has demonstrated significant improvements, showing an 11.6% and 10.3% increase in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively, on CASP15 benchmarks. For challenging antibody-antigen complexes, it boosted the success rate for interface prediction by 24.7% and 12.4% over the same tools [3].

Nevertheless, a note of caution comes from independent evaluations. A 2025 study scrutinizing AlphaFold3's predictions for protein-protein complexes found that while global accuracy metrics (like DockQ and RMSD) are high, major inconsistencies can exist in the compactness of the complex, intermolecular polar interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonds), and the packing of apolar residues at the interface [56]. These subtle structural inaccuracies can have a profound impact on thermodynamic analyses and hot-spot identification, indicating that predicted complex structures may not yet be ready to replace experimental ones for all applications [56].

Capturing Conformational Diversity and Ligand Binding

Another dimension of accuracy is the ability to predict the multiple conformational states a single protein can adopt. Proteins are dynamic, and their functional state often depends on interactions with ligands, DNA, or other proteins. Research indicates that AlphaFold2, while superb at predicting a stable ground-state conformation, often captures only a single state.

A comprehensive 2025 analysis comparing AlphaFold2 predictions to experimental structures for the medically crucial nuclear receptor family revealed systematic limitations [57]:

• AlphaFold2 models systematically underestimate ligand-binding pocket volumes by 8.4% on average [57].
• They miss functionally important asymmetry in homodimeric receptors where experimental structures show different conformational states for each chain [57].
• They lack "functionally important Ramachandran outliers"—unusual backbone conformations that are sometimes critical for protein function [57].

This demonstrates that current high-accuracy predictors, trained primarily on static structures, do not fully capture the spectrum of biologically relevant conformational states. This is a critical consideration for researchers using these models for structure-based drug design.

Table 2: Performance of Structure Prediction Tools on Advanced Challenges

Challenge Area	Tool/Method	Key Finding/Limitation	Implication for Research
Protein Complexes	AlphaFold3 / Multimer	Lower accuracy than monomers; poor apolar packing [3] [56].	Use with caution for detailed interaction analysis.
Protein Complexes	DeepSCFold	11.6% TM-score improvement over AF-Multimer [3].	Promising approach for antibody-antigen systems.
Ligand Binding	AlphaFold2	Systematic 8.4% underestimation of pocket volume [57].	May hinder virtual screening for drug discovery.
Dynamics	AlphaFold2	Captures single state, misses functional conformational diversity [57].	Limited utility for studying allosteric mechanisms.

To effectively navigate the current landscape of protein structure prediction, researchers require a suite of computational resources and an understanding of their appropriate use cases.

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Structure Analysis

Resource / Tool	Type	Primary Function	URL / Reference
AlphaSync	Database	Provides continuously updated protein structures synchronized with UniProt.	https://alphasync.stjude.org/ [4]
AlphaFold DB	Database	Foundational repository of AlphaFold2 predictions (static).	https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/ [58]
DeepSCFold	Prediction Pipeline	Enhances protein complex structure modeling using structural complementarity.	Described in Nature Communications (2025) [3]
UniProt	Database	Central hub for protein sequence and functional information.	https://www.uniprot.org/ [4]
PDB	Database	Archive of experimentally determined structures (X-ray, Cryo-EM, NMR).	https://www.rcsb.org/ [57]

Recommended Workflow for Researchers

• Start with an Updated Database: For any inquiry into a protein's structure, begin with a synchronized resource like AlphaSync to ensure the model is based on the latest sequence data.
• Cross-Reference with Experimental Data: Whenever possible, compare the predicted model with experimental structures from the PDB. For regions of low confidence (low pLDDT scores), consider the possibility of intrinsic disorder or a requirement for a binding partner to stabilize the structure [57].
• Validate Complex Predictions: For protein-protein complexes, treat initial predictions as hypotheses. Be aware of potential inaccuracies in interfacial packing and use specialized tools like DeepSCFold for challenging targets like antibody-antigen pairs [3].
• Account for Conformational Flexibility: For drug discovery projects, particularly those involving allosteric regulation or ligand binding, do not rely solely on a single AF2 model. Use the predicted structure as a starting point for molecular dynamics simulations or consult experimental data to understand potential conformational changes [57] [56].

The field of protein structure prediction has moved beyond the initial goal of predicting a single, static fold from a sequence. The current research frontier is defined by a pursuit of dynamic, context-aware, and perpetually accurate models. In this endeavor, resources like AlphaSync, which provide continuous synchronization with the evolving sequence landscape, are not just incremental improvements but fundamental necessities. They mitigate the risk of propagating errors based on obsolete data and empower researchers to work with the most current information.

However, as this whitepaper has outlined, the journey towards complete predictive accuracy is ongoing. Significant challenges remain in modeling the intricate dance of protein complexes and the inherent dynamism of biological molecules. The future of the field lies in integrating continuous updates with methods that can predict multi-state conformations and the effects of post-translational modifications and cellular context. For researchers and drug developers, a sophisticated, tool-aware approach—one that leverages the power of continuously updated databases while respecting the current limitations of predictors—is essential for translating computational models into genuine biological insight and therapeutic breakthroughs.

The revolutionary progress in protein structure prediction, exemplified by AlphaFold2, has provided the scientific community with highly accurate models for numerous proteins [17]. However, the challenge is far from completely solved. The accuracy of a predicted protein structure is not uniform; certain regions, such as flexible loops, disordered segments, and complex multi-chain interfaces, are often modeled with lower confidence and higher error [3] [59]. Within the broader thesis of protein structure prediction accuracy research, the task of identifying these inaccurate regions and systematically refining them is a critical post-prediction step. This process is essential for transforming a generally good model into a reliable, actionable resource for downstream applications in mechanistic biology and structure-based drug development.

This guide details the modern techniques for identifying and improving unreliable regions in predicted protein structures. We focus on methods that leverage intrinsic model confidence scores, exploit evolutionary and physical principles, and integrate sparse experimental data to guide computational refinement. The protocols herein are designed for researchers who require atomic-level accuracy for critical applications such as interpreting disease variants, understanding allosteric mechanisms, and designing small-molecule therapeutics.

Core Concepts and Quantitative Benchmarks

Key Accuracy Metrics and Confidence Scores

Before embarking on refinement, one must understand how to quantify inaccuracy. The standard metrics for assessing the quality of a protein structure model fall into two categories: global metrics that evaluate the entire model, and local metrics that assess per-residue or regional accuracy.

Table 1: Key Metrics for Assessing Model Quality

Metric Name	Scope	Interpretation	Ideal Value
pLDDT (Predicted Local Distance Difference Test)	Per-residue	Estimates local confidence; low values indicate disorder or error [17].	>90 (Very high), <70 (Potentially unreliable)
pTM (Predicted Template Modeling Score)	Global	Estimates overall fold correctness [17].	Closer to 1.0
pSS-score (Predicted Structural Similarity Score)	Per-model (for complexes)	Quantifies structural similarity from sequence, used for MSA ranking [3].	Higher is better
pIA-score (Predicted Interaction Affinity Score)	Interface (for complexes)	Predicts protein-protein interaction probability from sequence [3].	Higher is better
RMSD (Root Mean Square Deviation)	Global or Local (e.g., interface)	Measures atomic coordinate distance from a reference (e.g., experimental structure).	Lower is better (0 is perfect)

The pLDDT score is perhaps the most practical tool for initial assessment. A pLDDT value below 70 often corresponds to regions that are either intrinsically disordered or modeled inaccurately. These low-confidence regions are primary targets for refinement.

Benchmarking Refinement Techniques

Recent advancements in refinement protocols have demonstrated significant quantitative improvements over baseline methods like AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, particularly for the challenging case of protein complexes.

Table 2: Benchmark Performance of Advanced Refinement Methods on CASP15 and SAbDab Datasets

Method / Protocol	Key Innovation	Test Set	Performance Gain
DeepSCFold	Uses sequence-derived structural complementarity and interaction probability to build paired MSAs [3].	CASP15 Multimers	11.6% and 10.3% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [3].
DeepSCFold	Compensates for lack of co-evolution in antibody-antigen systems.	SAbDab Antibody-Antigen	24.7% and 12.4% increase in interface prediction success rate over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3 [3].
AlphaFold2	Foundational method; provides pLDDT and pTM for initial assessment [17].	CASP14 Monomers	Median backbone accuracy of 0.96 Å (Cα RMSD₉₅) [17].

Experimental and Computational Protocols

Protocol 1: Refining Protein Complex Structures with DeepSCFold

This protocol is designed for refining models of protein-protein complexes, especially in cases where standard methods fail due to weak co-evolutionary signals (e.g., antibody-antigen, virus-host complexes) [3].

Workflow Overview:

• Input Preparation: Provide the amino acid sequences of all interacting protein chains.
• Monomeric MSA Construction: Generate deep multiple sequence alignments for each monomer using tools like HHblits or Jackhmmer against standard databases (UniRef30, UniRef90, BFD, etc.) [3].
• Paired MSA Construction via Deep Learning:
  • Rank sequences within monomeric MSAs using the pSS-score, a deep learning-predicted metric of structural similarity to the query sequence.
  • Calculate the pIA-score, a predicted interaction probability, for potential pairs of homologs from different subunit MSAs.
  • Systematically concatenate monomeric sequences into a paired MSA using pIA-scores and other biological information (e.g., species annotation).
• Initial Structure Prediction: Feed the constructed paired MSAs into a structure prediction engine like AlphaFold-Multimer to generate an ensemble of complex models.
• Model Selection and Iteration: Select the top model using a dedicated complex model quality assessment (QA) method like DeepUMQA-X. Use this selected model as an input template for a final round of structure prediction to generate the refined output [3].

Protocol 2: Integrating Sparse Experimental Data for Conformational Refinement

For proteins that sample multiple conformational states or have regions resistant to prediction, computational models can be refined using sparse experimental constraints [59].

Workflow Overview:

• Identify Inaccurate Regions: Pinpoint low-pLDDT regions and flexible loops in the initial AlphaFold2 model.
• Obtain Experimental Constraints:
  • Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange (HDX): Identifies solvent-accessible, flexible regions that are often dynamic [59].
  • Cross-linking Mass Spectrometry (XL-MS): Provides distance restraints between specific amino acids, valuable for validating and correcting inter-chain interfaces or long-range loops [59].
  • Cryo-EM Density Maps (low-resolution): Can be used as a soft constraint to guide the overall shape and domain packing of a model.
• Molecular Dynamics (MD) and Simulation with Restraints:
  • Incorporate the experimental data as energy restraints in molecular dynamics or discrete molecular dynamics (DMD) simulations.
  • The force field will bias the simulation to explore conformational space that satisfies both the physical laws (encoded in the force field) and the experimental observations (encoded as restraints).
• Ensemble Analysis: Analyze the resulting simulation trajectories to extract a refined structural model or an ensemble of models that represent the experimentally consistent conformational landscape [59].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Structure Refinement

Reagent / Resource	Type	Function in Refinement
UniRef30/90 Databases [3]	Sequence Database	Provides evolutionary information for constructing deep Multiple Sequence Alignments (MSAs), the foundation for accurate prediction.
AlphaFold-Multimer [3]	Software	A version of AlphaFold2 tailored for predicting protein complexes; the engine for many refinement protocols.
DeepSCFold Pipeline [3]	Software Protocol	Provides the pSS-score and pIA-score models for building structure-aware paired MSAs to refine complex structures.
HDX-MS Kit	Experimental Reagent	Provides labeling buffers and enzymes to perform Hydrogen-Deuterium Exchange, generating constraints on protein flexibility and solvent accessibility [59].
Cross-linking Reagents (e.g., DSSO)	Chemical Reagent	Reacts with specific amino acid pairs to create covalent cross-links, providing distance restraints for refining spatial relationships via MS [59].
Molecular Dynamics Software (e.g., GROMACS, AMBER)	Software	Simulates physical protein dynamics, allowing for refinement against experimental restraints and exploration of conformational landscapes [59].

Workflow Visualization and Logical Pathways

Protein Complex Refinement with DeepSCFold

Experimental Data Integration Workflow

The pursuit of perfect protein models necessitates a focused effort on identifying and correcting inaccurate regions. As detailed in this guide, the combination of sophisticated confidence metrics, deep learning-based MSA construction, and the strategic integration of experimental data provides a powerful toolkit for model refinement. The quantitative benchmarks demonstrate that these advanced protocols, such as DeepSCFold, offer substantial improvements over state-of-the-art baseline methods, particularly for the challenging yet biologically critical case of protein complexes. For researchers in structural biology and drug development, adopting these rigorous refinement techniques is no longer optional but essential for ensuring that computational predictions are of sufficient quality to drive meaningful scientific conclusions and experimental decisions.

Benchmarking and Validation: Ensuring Reliability in Practice

The Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) is a community-wide, blind experiment established in 1994 that serves as the definitive benchmark for evaluating protein structure prediction methods [60]. By providing rigorous double-blind testing and independent assessment, CASP creates an objective framework for comparing computational methods that predict three-dimensional protein structures from amino acid sequences [60]. This experiment has become particularly crucial for drug development professionals and researchers who rely on accurate protein models for structure-based drug design, target validation, and understanding disease mechanisms at the molecular level. The CASP organizers collaborate with structural biologists worldwide to obtain protein sequences for structures that are about to be solved but not yet publicly available, ensuring that predictors have no prior knowledge of the experimental results during the prediction season [61] [60]. This rigorous methodology establishes CASP as the undisputed gold standard for validating the accuracy and reliability of protein structure prediction methods in real-world scenarios.

CASP Experimental Design and Protocol

Core Principles and Workflow

The CASP experiment operates on a biennial schedule, with each round spanning several months from target release to final assessment [61]. The integrity of the experiment depends on several key design principles that maintain its blind nature and scientific rigor. Target selection involves identifying proteins with structures determined through experimental methods such as X-ray crystallography, NMR spectroscopy, or cryo-electron microscopy, but not yet publicly released in the Protein Data Bank [60]. This ensures that predictors cannot access reference structures during the prediction window. The organizers provide only the amino acid sequences to participants, who then submit their computed structures within strict deadlines—typically 72 hours for automated servers and up to three weeks for human predictor groups [62] [60]. The independent assessment phase involves comparing submitted models against the newly released experimental structures using standardized metrics, with evaluation performed by assessors who have no affiliation with the participating teams [60].

Table: CASP Experimental Timeline and Key Activities

Time Period	Primary Activities	Stakeholders Involved
April	Registration opens, server connectivity testing	Predictors, Organizers
May-July	Target release sequence begins	Experimentalists, Predictors
May-August	Model submission period	Predictor groups, Servers
August-October	Evaluation of predictions	Assessors, Organizers
November	Selection of conference speakers	Assessors, Organizers
December	CASP conference and results discussion	Entire community

Target Categorization and Difficulty Assessment

CASP classifies targets into categories based on modeling difficulty, which historically reflected the availability of structural templates [62]. The template-based modeling (TBM) category includes targets with detectable homology to known structures, subdivided into TBM-Easy for straightforward homology modeling and TBM-Hard for more challenging cases with distant relationships [62]. The free modeling (FM) category comprises targets with no detectable homology to existing structures, representing the most challenging prediction targets [62]. However, with the advent of highly accurate deep learning methods like AlphaFold2, these distinctions have become less relevant, as modern methods achieve high accuracy even without explicit template information [62]. In recent CASP rounds, the organization has adapted its categorization to reflect new challenges, including multi-domain proteins, protein complexes, and RNA structures [61].

Assessment Methodology and Quantitative Metrics

Key Evaluation Metrics for Model Accuracy

CASP employs a comprehensive set of quantitative metrics to evaluate different aspects of prediction accuracy, providing a multidimensional assessment of model quality. The Global Distance Test (GDT) is a primary metric for assessing overall fold correctness, particularly the GDT_TS variant which represents the average of four GDT scores at different distance thresholds (1, 2, 4, and 8 Å) [60]. This metric measures the percentage of Cα atoms in the model that can be superimposed on corresponding atoms in the experimental structure within a specified distance cutoff, providing a robust measure of global fold accuracy [60]. The Local Distance Difference Test (lDDT) is a complementary metric that evaluates local structural quality without requiring global superposition, making it particularly valuable for assessing regions of models that might be locally accurate but globally mispositioned [17] [63]. Additionally, the predicted lDDT (pLDDT) serves as a self-assessment metric provided by predictors like AlphaFold2 to estimate the confidence of their predictions on a per-residue basis [17].

Table: Core CASP Assessment Metrics for Protein Structure Prediction

Metric	Calculation Method	Structural Aspect Evaluated	Interpretation
GDT_TS	Average percentage of Cα atoms within 1, 2, 4, and 8Å distance thresholds after optimal superposition	Global fold correctness	Scores >90 considered competitive with experimental structures; >50 generally indicates correct fold
lDDT	Local distance differences between atoms in a model, calculated without global superposition	Local structural quality and packing	More sensitive to local errors than GDT_TS; evaluates chemical plausibility
pLDDT	Per-residue estimate of lDDT provided by prediction methods	Self-estimated model confidence	Values <50 indicate low confidence/disordered regions; >90 indicate high confidence
TM-Score	Template Modeling Score measuring structural similarity	Global fold similarity independent of protein length	Values >0.5 indicate correct fold; >0.8 indicate high accuracy
IAS	Interface Assessment Score for multimetric complexes	Quaternary structure accuracy	Evaluates interface contacts in protein complexes

Evaluation Categories and Experimental Protocols

CASP has evolved its assessment categories to reflect both enduring challenges and emerging frontiers in structure prediction. The tertiary structure prediction category remains the cornerstone, evaluating the accuracy of single protein chains or domains [60]. The assembly category assesses the modeling of protein-protein interactions, domain-domain interfaces, and multimeric complexes, increasingly important for understanding biological systems in their functional contexts [64] [61]. Accuracy estimation evaluates methods for predicting their own reliability, providing essential quality control for downstream applications [61] [63]. Recent additions include RNA structures and complexes, protein-ligand complexes for drug discovery applications, and protein conformational ensembles to address biological dynamics [61]. Each category follows specific evaluation protocols tailored to its biological context, with independent assessors developing specialized metrics and analyses to provide comprehensive performance assessments.

CASP Experimental Workflow: The double-blind assessment process ensures objective evaluation of prediction methods.

The AlphaFold Revolution and Its Impact on CASP

Breakthrough Performance in CASP14

The CASP14 experiment in 2020 marked a watershed moment in protein structure prediction with the extraordinary performance of DeepMind's AlphaFold2 system [17] [62]. This deep learning-based method demonstrated accuracy competitive with experimental structures for approximately two-thirds of the targets, with a median backbone accuracy of 0.96 Å RMSD₉₅ compared to 2.8 Å for the next best method [17]. The AlphaFold2 models achieved GDT_TS scores above 90 for most targets, indicating atomic-level accuracy that in many cases rivaled experimental determinations [62]. The system introduced several technical innovations, including a novel Evoformer architecture that jointly embeds multiple sequence alignments and pairwise features, a structure module that explicitly represents 3D coordinates, and an iterative refinement process called recycling [17]. This breakthrough performance represented such a dramatic leap forward that CASP organizers and participants recognized it as a solution to the classical single-chain protein folding problem, fundamentally changing the field's landscape and expectations [62] [65].

Evolution of Assessment Focus in the Post-AlphaFold Era

Following the AlphaFold2 breakthrough, CASP has adapted its focus to address new challenges at the frontier of structure prediction. With single-domain accuracy largely solved, assessment has shifted toward fine-grained accuracy of local main chain motifs and side chains, multi-protein complexes, and conformational ensembles [61] [65]. CASP15 introduced new categories including RNA structures, protein-ligand complexes, and accuracy estimation for complexes while retiring older categories like contact prediction and refinement that had become less relevant [61]. The experiment has strengthened collaborations with partner organizations like CAPRI (for protein complexes) and CAMEO (continuous evaluation) to provide complementary assessment frameworks [61]. This evolution reflects the field's transition from predicting static single-chain structures to modeling the dynamic, multi-molecular assemblies that underlie biological function in drug discovery contexts.

Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools

The CASP experiment relies on both computational infrastructure and biological data resources that constitute the essential "reagents" for structure prediction research.

Table: Essential Research Resources in Protein Structure Prediction

Resource Category	Specific Examples	Function in Structure Prediction
Sequence Databases	UniProt, GenBank, MGnify	Provide evolutionary information via multiple sequence alignments for covariance analysis
Structural Templates	Protein Data Bank (PDB), SCOP, CATH	Source of known folds for template-based modeling and method training
Deep Learning Frameworks	TensorFlow, PyTorch, JAX	Enable development and training of neural network architectures like AlphaFold2
Assessment Software	LGA, DALI, MolProbity	Provide standardized metrics for structural comparison and quality evaluation
Specialized Servers	AlphaFold Server, RoseTTAFold, Zhang-Server	Offer automated structure prediction for community use

Current Challenges and Future Directions

Despite remarkable progress, CASP continues to identify significant challenges at the frontiers of structure prediction. Protein complexes represent a major focus, with CASP15 showing dramatic progress in multimeric modeling but with room for improvement, particularly for transient complexes and those with large conformational changes [64]. Conformational heterogeneity and the prediction of multiple biologically relevant states remains an open challenge that CASP has begun addressing through new categories for ensemble prediction [61]. Functional interpretation of models, including ligand binding, allosteric regulation, and catalytic mechanisms, requires even greater accuracy and reliability than basic fold prediction [62]. Additionally, integrative modeling approaches that combine computational prediction with sparse experimental data continue to evolve as a essential methodology for complex systems [64]. As CASP moves forward, it continues to adapt its assessment strategies to drive progress in these areas, maintaining its role as the gold standard for objective evaluation in this rapidly advancing field.

Future Challenges in Structure Prediction: Current research focuses on complex biological scenarios beyond single-chain prediction.

Model Quality Assessment (QA) is a critical step in computational structural biology, serving as the gatekeeper for selecting the most accurate and reliable protein models from a pool of predictions. Within the broader context of protein structure prediction accuracy research, QA methods have evolved from simple scoring functions to sophisticated algorithms that evaluate both global and local accuracy, with particular emphasis on complex multimers and their interaction interfaces. The revolutionary advances brought by deep learning systems like AlphaFold2 have fundamentally transformed the field, achieving unprecedented accuracy in predicting protein monomer structures [17] [66]. However, this breakthrough has simultaneously intensified the need for robust QA methodologies, as researchers now regularly generate thousands of models through massive sampling techniques, creating a pressing demand for automated, reliable quality assessment protocols [67].

The Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments have established the gold-standard framework for evaluating protein structure prediction methods, including QA protocols. CASP's rigorous blind testing paradigm provides an objective benchmark for the community, with recent iterations placing increased emphasis on assessing multimeric assemblies and protein complexes [67]. This reflects the growing recognition that most proteins function as part of larger complexes rather than as isolated monomers, making accurate assessment of interfacial residues particularly crucial for biological relevance. As the field progresses beyond monomer prediction, QA methods face the challenge of evaluating increasingly complex biological systems, including protein-protein, protein-nucleic acid, and protein-ligand interactions [3] [68].

Core Principles of Model Quality Assessment

Fundamental QA Metrics and Their Biological Significance

Model Quality Assessment employs a diverse set of metrics, each designed to evaluate different aspects of predicted structures. These metrics can be broadly categorized into global measures that assess the overall topology and local measures that evaluate residue-level accuracy, with specialized metrics for interface assessment in complexes.

Table 1: Fundamental Model Quality Assessment Metrics

Metric	Evaluation Scope	Optimal Range	Biological Interpretation
Global Distance Test (GDT)	Global structure	0-100 (higher better)	Measures overall fold correctness; GDT > 50 generally indicates correct topology
Template Modeling Score (TM-score)	Global structure	0-1 (higher better)	Scale-independent measure of global fold similarity; TM-score > 0.5 indicates same fold
Root-Mean-Square Deviation (RMSD)	Atomic positions	0-∞ (lower better)	Measures atomic-level precision, but sensitive to small local errors
Local Distance Difference Test (lDDT)	Local reliability	0-100 (higher better)	Evaluates local structural reliability; robust to domain movements
pLDDT	Per-residue confidence	0-100 (higher better)	AlphaFold's predicted lDDT; estimates residue-level accuracy
Interface lDDT	Interface residues	0-100 (higher better)	Specifically assesses accuracy of interfacial residues in complexes

The biological significance of these metrics extends beyond mere numerical values. High global scores (TM-score > 0.7, GDT > 70) indicate that the overall protein topology is likely correct, enabling researchers to confidently assign putative functions based on fold similarity to characterized proteins. Local metrics like pLDDT provide residue-level confidence estimates, with scores below 50-60 typically indicating disordered regions or flexible loops that may require experimental validation [17] [67]. For multimeric complexes, interface assessment becomes paramount, as even globally accurate models with poor interfacial geometry often fail to provide biologically meaningful insights [3].

Evolution of QA in the AlphaFold Era

The introduction of AlphaFold2 represented a paradigm shift not only in prediction accuracy but also in quality assessment approaches. AlphaFold2's built-in confidence metric, pLDDT (predicted Local Distance Difference Test), demonstrated remarkable correlation with experimental accuracy, providing researchers with immediate per-residue reliability estimates [17]. Subsequent developments in AlphaFold3 extended this capability to biomolecular complexes, offering confidence metrics for interaction interfaces [67] [68]. The CASP16 evaluation highlighted that methods incorporating AlphaFold3-derived features, particularly per-atom pLDDT, performed best in estimating local accuracy and demonstrated superior utility for experimental structure solution [67].

However, the AlphaFold era has also introduced new challenges for QA methodologies. The widespread practice of generating massive model pools using tools like MassiveFold necessitates efficient and accurate model selection protocols [67]. Furthermore, as researchers increasingly apply these tools to challenging targets including orphan proteins, alternative conformations, and flexible complexes, QA methods must distinguish between genuinely accurate predictions and physically implausible structures that nonetheless achieve high confidence scores [68].

Methodologies and Experimental Protocols in Modern QA

Standardized Evaluation Frameworks: The CASP QMODE System

The CASP competition has established a standardized framework for evaluating QA methods through its QMODE system, which was expanded in CASP16 to address the growing importance of complex assemblies. This framework comprises three distinct evaluation modes:

• QMODE1: Assesses global structure accuracy using metrics like GDT_TS and TM-score, focusing on the ability to rank models by overall correctness.
• QMODE2: Evaluates local accuracy, particularly for interface residues in complexes, using interface-specific metrics like interface lDDT.
• QMODE3: Tests model selection performance from large-scale model pools, reflecting real-world usage scenarios where researchers generate thousands of candidate structures [67].

The CASP16 evaluation introduced a novel penalty-based ranking scheme for QMODE3 to handle score interdependence and varying prediction quality distributions across different target categories (monomeric, homomeric, and heteromeric). This approach acknowledges that practical model selection must account for the specific biological context and intended application of the predicted structures [67].

Specialized QA Workflows for Biomolecular Complexes

As protein structure prediction expands beyond monomers to encompass complexes, specialized QA workflows have emerged to address the unique challenges of multimeric systems. DeepSCFold exemplifies this trend with its pipeline that integrates structural complementarity predictions with traditional co-evolutionary signals [3]. The protocol employs two sequence-based deep learning models: one predicting protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) and another estimating interaction probability (pIA-score). These scores guide the construction of deep paired multiple-sequence alignments (pMSAs), which subsequently feed into structure prediction engines like AlphaFold-Multimer.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for Protein Complex QA

Reagent/Resource	Type	Primary Function in QA
AlphaFold-Multimer	Software	Predicts structures of protein complexes using paired MSAs
DeepSCFold	Pipeline	Enhances complex prediction via structural complementarity
pSS-score	Algorithm	Predicts structural similarity from sequence for MSA ranking
pIA-score	Algorithm	Estimates interaction probability for pairing sequences across subunits
AlphaFold3	Software	Predicts structures and interactions of diverse biomolecules
ColabFold Database	Database	Provides pre-computed MSAs for rapid structure prediction
DeepUMQA-X	Assessment Method	Performs complex model quality assessment for model selection

Benchmarking results demonstrate that this approach significantly enhances accuracy for challenging targets. On CASP15 multimer targets, DeepSCFold achieved improvements of 11.6% and 10.3% in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively. For antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, it enhanced the prediction success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over the same benchmarks [3].

Quantitative Benchmarking of State-of-the-Art Methods

Comprehensive Performance Across Biomolecular Systems

Recent independent benchmarking provides crucial insights into the relative performance of structure prediction methods across diverse biological contexts. A comprehensive assessment of AlphaFold3 across nine distinct datasets reveals its strengths and limitations compared to predecessor methods [68].

Table 3: Benchmarking Performance Across Biomolecular Systems

System Category	AlphaFold3 Performance	Comparison to Alternatives
Protein Monomers	Improved local accuracy over AF2	Limited global accuracy gains
Protein Complexes	Superior to AlphaFold-Multimer	Significant gains in local structure prediction
Peptide-Protein Complexes	Similar to AlphaFold-Multimer	Nearly indistinguishable performance
Antibody-Antigen Complexes	Significantly superior	Major improvement over other methods
Protein-Nucleic Acid Complexes	Substantial superiority over RoseTTAFoldNA	Gains in TM-score, lDDT, and interface metrics
RNA Multimers	Limited advantage	Significant gains only in lDDT scores
RNA Monomers	Outperformed by trRosettaRNA	Lower global prediction accuracy

This benchmarking demonstrates that while AlphaFold3 generally represents an advance, particularly for local structure and specific complex types, its performance varies significantly across different biomolecular systems. This underscores the continued importance of method-specific quality assessment rather than blanket acceptance of any single tool's outputs [68].

Assessment of Confidence Metrics and Their Calibration

A crucial aspect of modern QA is the evaluation of built-in confidence metrics and their relationship to actual accuracy. The CASP16 analysis revealed that AlphaFold3's per-atom pLDDT provides valuable local accuracy estimates that outperform global score-based assessments for many applications [67]. However, the relationship between predicted and observed accuracy is not uniform across all target types, with heteromeric complexes typically presenting greater challenges for confidence estimation than homomeric systems or monomers.

This variability necessitates careful calibration of confidence thresholds based on both the biological system and the intended application. For high-risk applications like drug design targeting specific interfaces, more conservative confidence thresholds combined with experimental validation may be warranted. For exploratory studies or hypothesis generation, lower confidence predictions may still provide valuable biological insights when appropriately contextualized.

Visualization of QA Workflows and Metric Relationships

Model Quality Assessment Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for modern model quality assessment, integrating both global and local evaluation metrics with specialized handling for complex assemblies:

QA Metric Relationships and Decision Pathways

This diagram maps the relationships between different QA metrics and illustrates the decision pathways for model selection based on quantitative assessments:

Future Directions and Emerging Challenges

As protein structure prediction continues to evolve, Model Quality Assessment faces several emerging challenges and opportunities. The growing emphasis on predicting conformational heterogeneity and dynamics represents a frontier beyond static structures, requiring QA methods to evaluate ensembles rather than single models [66]. Similarly, the integration of experimental data from cryo-EM, mass spectrometry, and cross-linking studies with computational predictions necessitates hybrid QA approaches that can weigh disparate sources of evidence [67].

The CASP16 evaluation highlighted ongoing challenges in assessing complex assemblies, particularly for targets with weak evolutionary signals or conformational flexibility [67]. Future QA methodologies will need to incorporate more explicit physicochemical principles and energy-based scoring to complement evolution-derived metrics, especially for orphan proteins and novel folds [33] [66]. Furthermore, as AlphaFold3 and similar tools extend predictions to non-protein biomolecules, QA methods must adapt to evaluate the accuracy of nucleic acid structures, ligands, and post-translational modifications [68].

Ultimately, the goal of Model Quality Assessment is not merely to select the best computational models but to provide researchers with calibrated confidence estimates that enable appropriate biological interpretation and guide targeted experimental validation. As the field progresses toward increasingly complex biological systems, robust QA will remain essential for translating computational predictions into genuine biological insights and therapeutic advances.

The revolutionary impact of AlphaFold2 on single-chain protein structure prediction created an urgent need for similar breakthroughs in modeling protein complexes. This whitepaper presents a comparative analysis of two advanced computational frameworks—DeepSCFold and AlphaFold3—evaluated against the rigorous CASP15 benchmark. Quantitative results demonstrate that DeepSCFold achieves an 11.6% improvement in TM-score over AlphaFold-Multimer and a 10.3% improvement over AlphaFold3 for multimer targets. Furthermore, in challenging antibody-antigen complexes from the SAbDab database, DeepSCFold enhances the prediction success rate for binding interfaces by 24.7% and 12.4% over AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively. These findings underscore significant methodological divergences in handling inter-chain interactions and suggest complementary strengths for different biological contexts within protein structure prediction accuracy research.

Protein complex structure determination is fundamental to understanding cellular functions, signal transduction, and metabolic processes [45]. While experimental methods like X-ray crystallography and cryo-EM face challenges in resolving complex structures, computational prediction has emerged as an indispensable complement. The protein structure prediction field has evolved dramatically since AlphaFold2's breakthrough in 2020, which demonstrated unprecedented accuracy for monomeric proteins [39] [19]. However, predicting the quaternary structure of protein complexes presents additional challenges, including accurately capturing inter-chain interaction signals and modeling interface regions [45].

The Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) provides a blind testing framework for independent assessment of modeling methods. CASP15 introduced enhanced focus on multimeric complexes, reflecting the field's evolving priorities [61]. Within this context, we analyze two state-of-the-art approaches: DeepSCFold, which employs sequence-based deep learning to predict protein-protein structural similarity and interaction probability, and AlphaFold3, which utilizes a substantially updated diffusion-based architecture capable of predicting joint structures of complexes including proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules [45] [69].

Methodological Frameworks

DeepSCFold Architecture

DeepSCFold employs a specialized pipeline for protein complex structure modeling that leverages sequence-derived structure-aware information rather than relying solely on sequence-level co-evolutionary signals [45]. Its methodology includes:

• Structural Similarity Prediction: A deep learning model predicts protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) purely from sequence information, providing a foundation for identifying interaction partners.
• Interaction Probability Estimation: A separate model estimates interaction probability (pIA-score) based solely on sequence-level features.
• Deep Paired MSA Construction: Integrates predicted pSS-scores and pIA-scores to construct deep paired multiple-sequence alignments (MSAs) by systematically concatenating monomeric homologs.
• Multi-source Biological Integration: Incorporates species annotations, UniProt accession numbers, and experimentally determined complexes from PDB to enhance biological relevance.
• Quality Assessment: Employs an in-house complex model quality assessment method (DeepUMQA-X) for final model selection.

The core innovation lies in capturing intrinsic and conserved protein-protein interaction patterns through structural complementarity information, particularly valuable for complexes lacking clear co-evolutionary signals such as antibody-antigen and virus-host systems [45].

AlphaFold3 Architecture

AlphaFold3 represents a substantial architectural evolution from previous versions, implementing a unified deep-learning framework for predicting complexes containing nearly all molecular types present in the PDB [69]. Key innovations include:

• Simplified MSA Processing: Replaces the evoformer with a simpler pairformer module, reducing MSA processing emphasis while retaining essential information.
• Diffusion-Based Structure Module: Directly predicts raw atom coordinates using a diffusion approach, replacing the frame-based structure module of AlphaFold2.
• Generative Training: Employs a diffusion training procedure that learns protein structure at multiple length scales, eliminating the need for torsion-based parameterizations or violation losses.
• Cross-Distillation: Addresses hallucination tendencies by enriching training data with structures predicted by AlphaFold-Multimer where unstructured regions appear as extended loops.
• Confidence Measures: Introduces a diffusion "rollout" procedure during training to predict atom-level and pairwise errors (pLDDT, PAE, and PDE).

This architecture enables high-accuracy modeling across biomolecular space, including proteins, nucleic acids, ligands, and ions, within a single unified framework [69].

Comparative Workflow

The diagram below illustrates the fundamental architectural differences between DeepSCFold and AlphaFold3, highlighting their distinct approaches to processing sequence information and generating structural models.

Experimental Framework & Benchmarking

CASP15 Benchmark Design

CASP15 (Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction, 15th edition) served as the independent testing framework for this comparative analysis. Running from May to August 2022, CASP15 included specific categories for assessing multimeric complexes and inter-subunit interfaces [61]. The experiment featured:

• Target Selection: 127 modeling targets across 5 prediction categories, with careful selection by protein structure experts to represent diverse challenges.
• Assessment Metrics: Independent evaluation using established metrics including TM-score, interface TM-score (iTM), and DockQ for complex structures.
• Temporal Validation: Models were generated using protein sequence databases available only up to May 2022, ensuring temporally unbiased assessment.
• Blind Prediction: All predictions were submitted before experimental structures were available, preventing any potential bias.

The CASP15 framework provided an ideal benchmark for objectively comparing the performance of DeepSCFold and AlphaFold3 under controlled, scientifically rigorous conditions [45] [61].

Performance Metrics

The evaluation incorporated multiple complementary quality scores to assess different aspects of model accuracy:

• Global Structure Quality: TM-score measures global fold similarity, with values >0.5 indicating correct topology.
• Interface Accuracy: Interface TM-score (iTM) and DockQ specifically evaluate binding interface quality.
• Local Structure Quality: pLDDT (predicted local distance difference test) assesses local geometry reliability.
• Complex-Specific Metrics: ipTM (interface pTM) combines interface and template modeling scores for complexes.

Quantitative Results

Table 1: CASP15 Benchmark Performance Comparison

Method	TM-score Improvement	Interface Success Rate	Antibody-Antigen Enhancement
DeepSCFold	+11.6% vs. AlphaFold-Multimer+10.3% vs. AlphaFold3	Significantly higher	+24.7% vs. AlphaFold-Multimer+12.4% vs. AlphaFold3
AlphaFold3	Baseline	Competitive but lower	Baseline
AlphaFold-Multimer	Baseline	Lower than both	Baseline

Table 2: Performance on Challenging Complex Types

Complex Type	DeepSCFold Strength	AlphaFold3 Strength
Antibody-Antigen	Superior binding interface prediction	Moderate performance
Multimeric Targets	Enhanced global and local accuracy	Good overall accuracy
Complexes Lacking Co-evolution	Excellent due to structural complementarity	Limited by dependence on co-evolution
Diverse Biomolecules	Specialized for proteins	Excellent (proteins, nucleic acids, ligands)

The results demonstrate that DeepSCFold's structural complementarity approach provides particular advantages for protein complexes where traditional co-evolutionary signals are weak or absent. The substantial improvement in antibody-antigen interface prediction (24.7% over AlphaFold-Multimer and 12.4% over AlphaFold3) highlights its specialized capability for these medically relevant targets [45].

Table 3: Essential Research Resources for Protein Complex Structure Prediction

Resource Name	Type	Function in Research	Access
CASP15 Dataset	Benchmark Data	Provides standardized targets and metrics for method evaluation	[61]
AlphaFold-Multimer	Algorithm	Baseline complex structure prediction for comparative studies	[45]
SAbDab Database	Specialized Dataset	Curated antibody-antigen complexes for validation	[45]
PSBench	Benchmark Suite	Large-scale dataset for model accuracy estimation	[53]
UniProt	Sequence Database	Source of protein sequences for MSA construction	[45]
AlphaSync	Updated Structure Database	Continuously updated predicted structures	[4]
DeepUMQA-X	Quality Assessment	Model selection and ranking in DeepSCFold pipeline	[45]
DockQ	Evaluation Metric	Quantifies docking accuracy for complexes	[70]

Discussion & Implications

Methodological Advantages and Limitations

The comparative analysis reveals fundamental tradeoffs between these approaches. DeepSCFold's sequence-based structural similarity prediction enables effective modeling of complexes with limited co-evolutionary information, making it particularly valuable for antibody-antigen systems [45]. However, its specialization to proteins may limit applicability to diverse biomolecular complexes.

AlphaFold3's unified architecture provides broad capabilities across multiple molecular types, leveraging its diffusion approach to generate chemically plausible structures without specialized parameterizations [69]. Nevertheless, its performance on specific protein-protein interaction types, particularly antibody-antigen complexes, appears less robust compared to DeepSCFold's specialized approach.

Practical Applications in Drug Development

For researchers and pharmaceutical professionals, these tools offer complementary value. DeepSCFold's enhanced antibody-antigen interface prediction (24.7% improvement over AlphaFold-Multimer) directly benefits therapeutic antibody development [45]. Independent benchmarking confirms that while AlphaFold3 achieves approximately 60% success rate in antibody docking with extensive sampling (1000 seeds), this drops to 10.2% with limited sampling, and the method still experiences a 65% failure rate for antibody and nanobody docking with single seed sampling [70].

DeepSCFold's methodology of leveraging structural complementarity rather than relying solely on co-evolutionary signals proves particularly advantageous for these challenging cases, suggesting immediate applicability for structure-based antibody design.

Future Directions

The performance differences between these systems highlight ongoing challenges in protein complex prediction. DeepSCFold demonstrates that incorporating structural awareness directly from sequence information can compensate for absent co-evolutionary signals [45]. AlphaFold3 shows the power of unified architectures for broad biomolecular coverage [69]. Future developments may integrate these approaches, combining specialized interaction pattern recognition with generalizable diffusion-based generation.

The emergence of specialized benchmarks like PSBench, containing over one million structural models, will accelerate progress by enabling more rigorous training and evaluation of model accuracy estimation methods [53].

This comparative analysis demonstrates that both DeepSCFold and AlphaFold3 represent significant advances in protein complex structure prediction, with distinct methodological advantages. DeepSCFold achieves superior performance on CASP15 multimer targets and antibody-antigen complexes through its innovative use of sequence-predicted structural similarity and interaction probability. AlphaFold3 provides a unified framework for diverse biomolecular complexes but shows limitations in specific protein-protein interaction categories.

For researchers focusing on protein complexes, particularly antibody-antigen systems for therapeutic development, DeepSCFold offers specialized capabilities for interface prediction. For studies involving diverse biomolecules including nucleic acids and ligands, AlphaFold3 provides broader coverage. Both systems contribute substantially to the evolving landscape of protein structure prediction accuracy research, addressing different aspects of the fundamental challenge of modeling biomolecular interactions with atomic precision.

The field of protein structure prediction has been revolutionized by artificial intelligence methods like AlphaFold, which can generate accurate structural models for many protein complexes. However, a significant bottleneck persists: reliably estimating the quality of these predicted models for ranking and selection, a process known as Estimation of Model Accuracy (EMA). For researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, selecting the most accurate structural model is crucial for downstream applications in function analysis, protein design, and drug discovery. The fundamental challenge in EMA development has been the lack of large, diverse, and well-annotated datasets for training and evaluating machine learning-based EMA methods. PSBench addresses this critical gap by providing a comprehensive benchmark suite specifically designed for advancing EMA research in protein complex modeling, thereby enabling more reliable utilization of predicted protein structures in biomedical research [71] [53].

PSBench represents a foundational infrastructure for the protein structure prediction community, specifically designed to overcome previous limitations in EMA method development. This benchmark suite comprises five large-scale, labeled datasets containing over 1.4 million structural models generated during the 15th and 16th community-wide Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP15 and CASP16) competitions, plus additional models curated from recent Protein Data Bank entries [72]. These datasets cover an extensive range of protein sequence lengths (96 to 8,460 residues), complex stoichiometries (25 different types), functional classes, and modeling difficulties, ensuring broad representation of the protein complex structure space [53].

Unlike earlier benchmark datasets that were limited in size and scope (e.g., PPI4DOCK with 54,000 models or Multimer-AF2 Dataset with 9,251 models), PSBench provides orders of magnitude more structural data, all generated in real-world blind prediction settings where true structures were unknown during model generation [53]. This comprehensive resource includes not only the structural models themselves but also automated evaluation tools, baseline EMA methods for comparison, and a model annotation pipeline for continuous expansion, creating a complete ecosystem for EMA research and development [73].

Core Components and Architecture of PSBench

Dataset Composition and Structural Diversity

PSBench is organized into five complementary large-scale datasets designed for different aspects of EMA method development and evaluation [73]:

• CASP15inhousedataset: 7,885 models generated by MULTICOM3 during CASP15
• CASP15communitydataset: 10,942 models from all participating groups in CASP15
• CASP16inhousedataset: ~1 million models generated by MULTICOM4 during CASP16
• CASP16communitydataset: 12,904 models from all CASP16 participants
• Multimer7202482025_dataset: 400,400 AlphaFold3-generated models for 2,002 non-redundant multimeric protein entries from recent PDB deposits

The dataset includes additional subsets (CASP15inhouseTOP5dataset and CASP16inhouseTOP5dataset) specifically curated for training and testing EMA methods like GATE, consisting of the top 5 models per predictor [73].

Comprehensive Quality Metrics and Annotation Framework

Each structural model in PSBench is rigorously annotated with 10 distinct quality scores spanning global, local, and interface accuracy measures, providing comprehensive labeling for training and evaluation purposes [53] [73]:

Table: Quality Score Annotations in PSBench

Category	Quality Score	Description
Global Quality	tmscore (4 variants)	Measures overall structural similarity to native structure
	rmsd	Root-mean-square deviation of atomic positions
Local Quality	lddt	Local Distance Difference Test measuring local accuracy
Interface Quality	ics	Interface Contact Similarity
	ics_precision	Precision of interface contacts
	ics_recall	Recall of interface contacts
	ips	Interface Patch Similarity
	qs_global	Global quality score for interface
	qs_best	Best quality score for interface
	dockq_wave	DockQ score for interface evaluation

Additionally, PSBench provides supplementary features for certain datasets, including model type (AlphaFold2-multimer or AlphaFold3), AlphaFold confidence scores, interface pTM, number of inter-chain predicted aligned errors, and predicted DockQ scores, offering rich feature sets for machine learning applications [73].

Practical Implementation: Methodologies for PSBench Utilization

Experimental Protocol for EMA Method Evaluation

PSBench provides standardized evaluation protocols to ensure rigorous and comparable assessment of EMA methods. The benchmark includes scripts that calculate how closely predicted quality scores match true quality scores using four complementary metrics [73]:

• Pearson Correlation: Measures linear correlation between predicted and true scores
• Spearman Correlation: Assesss monotonic relationship for ranking performance
• Top-1 Ranking Loss: Evaluates ability to identify the single best model
• AUROC: Measures binary classification performance for quality thresholds

The typical command structure for evaluation is:

Where inputdir contains EMA method predictions, nativedir contains true quality scores from PSBench datasets, and truescorefield specifies which quality metric to evaluate against (default: tmscore_usalign) [73].

Integration with Machine Learning Workflows

For developing new machine learning-based EMA methods, PSBench supports seamless integration through standardized data formats and feature extraction. The datasets are organized in a consistent directory structure with separate folders for FASTA sequences, predicted models, quality scores, and AlphaFold features [73]. This organization enables straightforward loading and processing for training pipelines. Researchers can utilize the provided AlphaFold-based features or extract additional features from the structural models, with the quality score annotations serving as training labels for supervised learning approaches.

Case Study: GATE - A Graph Transformer EMA Method

The utility of PSBench for developing state-of-the-art EMA methods was demonstrated through GATE, a graph transformer-based approach trained on CASP15 datasets and blindly tested during CASP16 [53]. The experimental protocol followed this methodology:

• Training Data Preparation: GATE was trained on two CASP15 datasets (CASP15inhousedataset and CASP15communitydataset) for different application scenarios: selecting models from a single predictor or from multiple community predictors [53].

• Feature Engineering: The method utilized structural features, evolutionary information, and AlphaFold-derived confidence metrics available in PSBench to represent each protein complex model as a graph for transformer processing [53].

• Blind Testing: Two variants of GATE were evaluated in the truly blind CASP16 competition held from May to August 2024, where true structures were unknown during prediction and assessment [53].

• Performance Validation: In the official CASP16 EMA competition category, GATE ranked among the best methods out of 38 participating EMA predictors, demonstrating the effectiveness of PSBench for developing cutting-edge EMA methods [53].

Table: Key Research Reagent Solutions in PSBench

Resource	Type	Function in EMA Research
CASP15/16 Datasets	Data	Training and testing datasets with known ground truth
Quality Score Annotations	Labels	Benchmark labels for model accuracy at multiple levels
AlphaFold Features	Features	Pre-computed structural and confidence features
Evaluation Scripts	Software	Standardized metrics for method comparison
Baseline EMA Methods	Software	Reference implementations for performance benchmarking
Model Annotation Pipeline	Software	Tools for labeling new structures and expanding datasets

Advanced Applications and Specialized Methodologies

Integration with Cutting-Edge Prediction Methods

PSBench enables the development of EMA methods that complement advanced structure prediction approaches like DeepSCFold, which improves complex structure modeling by using sequence-derived structure complementarity rather than relying solely on co-evolutionary signals [3]. DeepSCFold employs deep learning models to predict protein-protein structural similarity (pSS-score) and interaction probability (pIA-score) from sequence information, constructing paired multiple sequence alignments that enhance complex structure prediction [3]. When benchmarked on CASP15 targets, DeepSCFold achieved improvements of 11.6% and 10.3% in TM-score compared to AlphaFold-Multimer and AlphaFold3, respectively [3]. For antibody-antigen complexes, it enhanced interface prediction success rates by 24.7% and 12.4% over the same benchmarks [3]. PSBench provides the essential framework for developing EMA methods that can accurately assess the quality of models generated by such specialized predictors.

Addressing Specialized Challenges in Protein Modeling

The comprehensive diversity of PSBench makes it particularly valuable for addressing specialized challenges in protein structure prediction, such as antibody-antigen complexes and chimeric proteins. These complexes often lack clear co-evolutionary signals at the sequence level, making accurate quality assessment particularly challenging [3] [74]. By including a wide range of complex types and difficulties, PSBench enables the development of robust EMA methods that generalize across different biological contexts. Furthermore, the scale of PSBench allows for targeted analysis of specific protein classes, helping researchers identify methodological strengths and weaknesses for particular applications in therapeutic development.

PSBench represents a transformative resource for the protein structure prediction community, addressing the critical bottleneck of model accuracy estimation in protein complex modeling. By providing over 1.4 million structurally diverse, comprehensively annotated models with standardized evaluation protocols, it enables systematic development and benchmarking of machine learning-based EMA methods [71] [53]. The demonstrated success of GATE in blind CASP16 assessments validates PSBench's utility for advancing the field [53].

As protein structure prediction continues to evolve with new methods like AlphaFold3 and specialized approaches for challenging targets, the importance of accurate quality assessment will only increase. PSBench provides the foundational infrastructure needed to develop EMA methods that keep pace with these advances, ultimately accelerating research in functional genomics, drug discovery, and precision medicine. The modular design and expansion capabilities of PSBench ensure its continued relevance as new protein complexes are characterized and prediction methods improve, establishing it as a cornerstone resource for the next generation of protein structure research.

Conclusion

The accuracy of protein structure prediction has reached an unprecedented level, transforming it from a formidable challenge into a powerful, routine tool for biomedical research. Breakthroughs in deep learning have enabled the rapid prediction of monomer structures with near-experimental accuracy, while emerging methods for complexes and protein-nucleic acid interactions are steadily closing remaining gaps. The continued development of rigorous benchmarking, robust quality assessment, and continuously updated databases ensures these tools remain reliable and current. For drug development professionals and researchers, this progress means faster functional annotation of genes, deeper mechanistic insights into diseases, and a significantly accelerated path to identifying and validating novel therapeutic targets. The future lies in refining predictions for complex molecular machines and dynamic systems, further integrating these models into the drug discovery pipeline to usher in a new era of computational structural biology.

References

• 1. The Protein Folding Problem - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2443096/]
• 2. What is the protein folding problem? | AlphaFold [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/an-introductory-guide-to-its-strengths-and-limitations/what-is-the-protein-folding-problem/]
• 3. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65090-7]
• 4. AlphaSync database keeps protein structure prediction ... [https://www.stjude.org/media-resources/news-releases/2025-medicine-science-news/alphasync-database-keeps-protein-structure-prediction-resource-up-to-date.html]
• 5. Quantitative analysis of protein dynamics using a deep ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10941960/]
• 6. Mega-scale experimental analysis of protein folding ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06328-6]
• 7. Protein folding: Defining a “standard” set of experimental ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2279278/]
• 8. Structure-based protein function prediction using graph ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23303-9]
• 9. Calculating GDT TS - Proteopedia, life in 3D [https://proteopedia.org/wiki/index.php/Calculating_GDT_TS]
• 10. LDDT - local Distance Difference Test [https://swissmodel.expasy.org/lddt]
• 11. lDDT: a local superposition-free score for comparing ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3799472/]
• 12. pLDDT: Understanding local confidence | AlphaFold [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/inputs-and-outputs/evaluating-alphafolds-predicted-structures-using-confidence-scores/plddt-understanding-local-confidence/]
• 13. Flexibility or uncertainty? A critical assessment of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0969212625003442]
• 14. Protein structure prediction via deep learning: an in-depth ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12003282/]
• 15. Boosting AlphaFold protein tertiary structure prediction ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08960-6]
• 16. Evaluation of the structural models of the human reference ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665928X25000042]
• 17. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03819-2]
• 18. How AI Revolutionized Protein Science, but Didn't End It [https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-ai-revolutionized-protein-science-but-didnt-end-it-20240626/]
• 19. AlphaFold: Five Years of Impact [https://deepmind.google/blog/alphafold-five-years-of-impact/]
• 20. AlphaFold [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaFold]
• 21. Advancements in protein structure prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482525001921]
• 22. What's next for AlphaFold: A conversation with a Google ... [https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/11/24/1128322/whats-next-for-alphafold-a-conversation-with-a-google-deepmind-nobel-laureate/]
• 23. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [https://alphafold.ebi.ac.uk/]
• 24. Experimental Accuracy in Protein Structure Refinement via ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30530696/]
• 25. Overview of AlphaFold2 and breakthroughs in overcoming ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010482524007054]
• 26. Multistate and functional protein design using ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02395-w]
• 27. AlphaFold2's training set powers its predictions of some ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11934219/]
• 28. Beyond static structures: protein dynamic conformations ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12262120/]
• 29. Critical assessment of AI-based protein structure prediction [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2950363925000353]
• 30. The Protein Folding Problem: The day AI unlocked a secret of ... [https://medicine.iu.edu/blogs/research-updates/the-protein-folding-problem-the-day-ai-unlocked-a-secret-of-life]
• 31. How good are AlphaFold models for docking-based virtual ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004222021939]
• 32. High-throughput discovery of inhibitory protein fragments ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10769210/]
• 33. Advancing protein structure prediction beyond AlphaFold2 [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X2500003X]
• 34. Navigating protein – nucleic acid sequence-structure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7618323/]
• 35. RoseTTAFold: Accurate protein structure prediction accessible ... [https://www.ipd.uw.edu/2021/07/rosettafold-accurate-protein-structure-prediction-accessible-to-all/]
• 36. Introducing All-Atom versions of RoseTTAFold and ... [https://www.bakerlab.org/2023/10/30/introducing-all-atom-versions-of-rosettafold-and-rfdiffusion/]
• 37. Differential performance of RoseTTAFold in antibody ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9487640/]
• 38. Advances in the Application of Protein Language Modeling ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11353971/]
• 39. AlphaFold is five years old — these charts show how it ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-03886-9]
• 40. MIT scientists debut a generative AI model that could ... [https://news.mit.edu/2025/mit-scientists-debut-generative-ai-model-that-could-create-molecules-addressing-hard-to-treat-diseases-1125]
• 41. Key Trends Shaping Therapeutic Antibodies in 2025 and ... [https://www.diatheva.com/key-trends-shaping-therapeutic-antibodies-in-2025-and-beyond/]
• 42. Antibody Drug Conjugate (ADC) Market Report 2025 [https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/08/13/3132490/28124/en/Antibody-Drug-Conjugate-ADC-Market-Report-2025-Industry-Set-to-Double-by-2030-Driven-by-Next-Gen-Oncology-Innovations-Reaching-16-Billion.html]
• 43. Protein structure accuracy estimation using geometry ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10880424/]
• 44. FDA Announces Plan to Phase Out Animal Testing ... [https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-announces-plan-phase-out-animal-testing-requirement-monoclonal-antibodies-and-other-drugs]
• 45. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12630834/]
• 46. Protein structure prediction via deep learning: an in-depth ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1498662/full]
• 47. Recent Advances and Challenges in Protein Structure Prediction - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38109487/]
• 48. Quantitative comparison of protein-protein interaction ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9939524/]
• 49. Deep transfer learning for inter-chain contact predictions of ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40426-3]
• 50. Deep-learning-based single-domain and multidomain ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02654-4]
• 51. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database [https://deepmind.google/science/alphafold/]
• 52. A Complementarity‐Based Approach to De Novo Binder Design [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12412469/]
• 53. PSBench: a large-scale benchmark for estimating the ... [https://arxiv.org/html/2505.22674v1]
• 54. De novo design of protein structure and function with ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06415-8]
• 55. AlphaSync is an enhanced AlphaFold structure database ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41219581/]
• 56. AlphaFold3 prediction of protein-protein complex: Is it ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2001037025004180]
• 57. Comprehensive analysis of experimental and AlphaFold 2 ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12149446/]
• 58. Large protein databases reveal structural complementarity ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63250-3]
• 59. Experimentally-Driven Protein Structure Modeling - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7214187/]
• 60. CASP [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CASP]
• 61. Home - CASP15 [https://predictioncenter.org/casp15/]
• 62. Critical Assessment of Methods of Protein Structure ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8726744/]
• 63. Assessment of Protein Model Structure Accuracy ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6851486/]
• 64. Protein Structure Prediction Center [https://predictioncenter.org/]
• 65. After AlphaFold, how CASP competition is staying relevant [https://www.statnews.com/2025/01/07/casp-protein-structure-prediction-competition-after-alphafold/]
• 66. Emerging frontiers in protein structure prediction following ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11999738/]
• 67. Model Quality Assessment for CASP16 - PubMed - NIH [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40847537/]
• 68. A comprehensive benchmarking of the AlphaFold3 for ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41313605/]
• 69. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07487-w]
• 70. What does AlphaFold3 learn about antibody and nanobody ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12360200/]
• 71. [2505.22674] PSBench: a large-scale benchmark for ... [https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.22674]
• 72. PSBench: a large-scale benchmark for estimating the ... [https://neurips.cc/virtual/2025/poster/121810]
• 73. BioinfoMachineLearning/PSBench [https://github.com/BioinfoMachineLearning/PSBench]
• 74. Improving prediction accuracy in chimeric proteins with ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12328686/]