Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31602685›Full record

ArticleProteins2019

Protein structure prediction using multiple deep neural networks in the 13th Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP13).

Andrew W Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Chongli Qin, Augustin Žídek, Alexander W R Nelson, Alex Bridgland and 9 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proteins, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 133 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
133citing papers in PubMed
19.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

133 citing papers in PubMed, 359 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Advances in Protein Function Prediction from the Fifth CAFA Challenge.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Protein foundation models: a comprehensive survey.Science China. Life sciences · 2026
    Review
  7. Precision Editing of NLRS Improves Effector Recognition for Enhanced Disease Resistance.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Computational and Experimental Approaches and Applications of Biological NMR.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2026
    Review
  11. A machine learning protocol for predicting structural distributions of amyloid-forming proteins from 2D IR spectra.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

73 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

19 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew W SeniorDeepMind, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2401-5691
Richard EvansDeepMind, London, UK.
John JumperDeepMind, London, UK.
James KirkpatrickDeepMind, London, UK.
Laurent SifreDeepMind, London, UK.
Tim GreenDeepMind, London, UK.
Chongli QinDeepMind, London, UK.
Augustin ŽídekDeepMind, London, UK.
Alexander W R NelsonDeepMind, London, UK.
Alex BridglandDeepMind, London, UK.
Hugo PenedonesDeepMind, London, UK.
Stig PetersenDeepMind, London, UK.
Karen SimonyanDeepMind, London, UK.
Steve CrossanDeepMind, London, UK.
Pushmeet KohliDeepMind, London, UK.
David T JonesThe Francis Crick Institute, London, UK.
David SilverDeepMind, London, UK.
Koray KavukcuogluDeepMind, London, UK.
Demis HassabisDeepMind, London, UK.
Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) · GBThe Francis Crick Institute · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe AlphaFold, the protein structure prediction system that was entered by the group A7D in CASP13. Submissions were made by three free-modeling (FM) methods which combine the predictions of three neural networks. All three systems were guided by predictions of distances between pairs of residues produced by a neural network. Two systems assembled fragments produced by a generative neural network, one using scores from a network trained to regress GDT_TS. The third system shows that simple gradient descent on a properly constructed potential is able to perform on par with more expensive traditional search techniques and without requiring domain segmentation. In the CASP13 FM assessors' ranking by summed z-scores, this system scored highest with 68.3 vs 48.2 for the next closest group (an average GDT_TS of 61.4). The system produced high-accuracy structures (with GDT_TS scores of 70 or higher) for 11 out of 43 FM domains. Despite not explicitly using template information, the results in the template category were comparable to the best performing template-based methods.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerProtein ConformationProtein FoldingAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinModels, MolecularProteinsProteinsCASPdeep learningmachine learningprotein structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID31602685
PMCPMC7079254
OpenAlexW2980272550

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.