Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37920879›Full record

ArticleProteins2023

Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-Round XV.

Andriy Kryshtafovych, Torsten Schwede, Maya Topf, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proteins, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 92 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
92citing 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

92 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Rapidly evolving aphid gall effector proteins exhibit saposin-like folds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

32 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

5 authors.

Andriy KryshtafovychGenome Center, University of California, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5066-7178
Torsten SchwedeBiozentrum & SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2715-335X
Maya TopfCentre for Structural Systems Biology, Leibniz-Institut für Virologie and Universitätsklinikum Hamburg-Eppendorf (UKE), Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8185-1215
Krzysztof FidelisGenome Center, University of California, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8061-412X
John MoultInstitute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3012-2282

Funding

Prospective analysis to determine model accuracy performance and boundaries in the post-AlphaFold2 environmentR01GM100482 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI FIDELIS, KRZYSZTOF A · 2012 to 2025
$11.1M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100482NIGMS NIH HHS R01GM100482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computing protein structure from amino acid sequence information has been a long-standing grand challenge. Critical assessment of structure prediction (CASP) conducts community experiments aimed at advancing solutions to this and related problems. Experiments are conducted every 2 years. The 2020 experiment (CASP14) saw major progress, with the second generation of deep learning methods delivering accuracy comparable with experiment for many single proteins. There is an expectation that these methods will have much wider application in computational structural biology. Here we summarize results from the most recent experiment, CASP15, in 2022, with an emphasis on new deep learning-driven progress. Other papers in this special issue of proteins provide more detailed analysis. For single protein structures, the AlphaFold2 deep learning method is still superior to other approaches, but there are two points of note. First, although AlphaFold2 was the core of all the most successful methods, there was a wide variety of implementation and combination with other methods. Second, using the standard AlphaFold2 protocol and default parameters only produces the highest quality result for about two thirds of the targets, and more extensive sampling is required for the others. The major advance in this CASP is the enormous increase in the accuracy of computed protein complexes, achieved by the use of deep learning methods, although overall these do not fully match the performance for single proteins. Here too, AlphaFold2 based method perform best, and again more extensive sampling than the defaults is often required. Also of note are the encouraging early results on the use of deep learning to compute ensembles of macromolecular structures. Critically for the usability of computed structures, for both single proteins and protein complexes, deep learning derived estimates of both local and global accuracy are of high quality, however the estimates in interface regions are slightly less reliable. CASP15 also included computation of RNA structures for the first time. Here, the classical approaches produced better agreement with experiment than the new deep learning ones, and accuracy is limited. Also, for the first time, CASP included the computation of protein-ligand complexes, an area of special interest for drug design. Here too, classical methods were still superior to deep learning ones. Many new approaches were discussed at the CASP conference, and it is clear methods will continue to advance.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProteinsAmino Acid SequenceModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProteinsCASPcommunity wide experimentprotein structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID37920879
PMCPMC10843301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.