ArticlePloS one2024
Systematic analysis of the relationship between fold-dependent flexibility and artificial intelligence protein structure prediction.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An integrative multitiered computational analysis for better understanding the structure and function of 85 miniproteins.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based deep learning methods for predicting protein structures are reshaping knowledge development and scientific discovery. Recent large-scale application of AI models for protein structure prediction has changed perceptions about complicated biological problems and empowered a new generation of structure-based hypothesis testing. It is well-recognized that proteins have a modular organization according to archetypal folds. However, it is yet to be determined if predicted structures are tuned to one conformation of flexible proteins or if they represent average conformations. Further, whether or not the answer is protein fold-dependent. Therefore, in this study, we analyzed 2878 proteins with at least ten distinct experimental structures available, from which we can estimate protein topological rigidity verses heterogeneity from experimental measurements. We found that AlphaFold v2 (AF2) predictions consistently return one specific form to high accuracy, with 99.68% of distinct folds (n = 623 out of 628) having an experimental structure within 2.5Å RMSD from a predicted structure. Yet, 27.70% and 10.82% of folds (174 and 68 out of 628 folds) have at least one experimental structure over 2.5Å and 5Å RMSD, respectively, from their AI-predicted structure. This information is important for how researchers apply and interpret the output of AF2 and similar tools. Additionally, it enabled us to score fold types according to how homogeneous versus heterogeneous their conformations are. Importantly, folds with high heterogeneity are enriched among proteins which regulate vital biological processes including immune cell differentiation, immune activation, and metabolism. This result demonstrates that a large amount of protein fold flexibility has already been experimentally measured, is vital for critical cellular processes, and is currently unaccounted for in structure prediction databases. Therefore, the structure-prediction revolution begets the protein dynamics revolution!
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.