Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36304330›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in bioinformatics2022

Improving peptide-protein docking with AlphaFold-Multimer using forced sampling.

Isak Johansson-Åkhe, Björn Wallner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

82 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Computationally Evidence-Grounded Sequence-First Design of Peptide Binders.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. ConforFold recovers alternative protein conformations beyond MSA subsampling.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Peptide-protein docking: from physics-based models to generative intelligence.Chemical communications (Cambridge, England) · 2026
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

22 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

2 authors.

Isak Johansson-ÅkheDivision of Bioinformatics, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Björn WallnerDivision of Bioinformatics, Department of Physics, Chemistry and Biology, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein interactions are key in vital biological processes. In many cases, particularly in regulation, this interaction is between a protein and a shorter peptide fragment. Such peptides are often part of larger disordered regions in other proteins. The flexible nature of peptides enables the rapid yet specific regulation of important functions in cells, such as their life cycle. Consequently, knowledge of the molecular details of peptide-protein interactions is crucial for understanding and altering their function, and many specialized computational methods have been developed to study them. The recent release of AlphaFold and AlphaFold-Multimer has led to a leap in accuracy for the computational modeling of proteins. In this study, the ability of AlphaFold to predict which peptides and proteins interact, as well as its accuracy in modeling the resulting interaction complexes, are benchmarked against established methods. We find that AlphaFold-Multimer predicts the structure of peptide-protein complexes with acceptable or better quality (DockQ ≥0.23) for 66 of the 112 complexes investigated-25 of which were high quality (DockQ ≥0.8). This is a massive improvement on previous methods with 23 or 47 acceptable models and only four or eight high quality models, when using energy-based docking or interaction templates, respectively. In addition, AlphaFold-Multimer can be used to predict whether a peptide and a protein will interact. At 1% false positives, AlphaFold-Multimer found 26% of the possible interactions with a precision of 85%, the best among the methods benchmarked. However, the most interesting result is the possibility of improving AlphaFold by randomly perturbing the neural network weights to force the network to sample more of the conformational space. This increases the number of acceptable models from 66 to 75 and improves the median DockQ from 0.47 to 0.55 (17%) for first ranked models. The best possible DockQ improves from 0.58 to 0.72 (24%), indicating that selecting the best possible model is still a challenge. This scheme of generating more structures with AlphaFold should be generally useful for many applications involving multiple states, flexible regions, and disorder.

Indexed as

AIAlphaFoldimproved samplinginteractionsmachine learningMLpeptide-proteinpeptide-protein docking

Identifiers

PMID36304330
PMCPMC9580857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.