Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39803493›Full record

ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024

AlphaFold2's training set powers its predictions of fold-switched conformations.

Joseph W Schafer, Lauren L Porter

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Joseph W SchaferNational Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA.
Lauren L PorterNational Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 20894, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AlphaFold2 (AF2), a deep-learning based model that predicts protein structures from their amino acid sequences, has recently been used to predict multiple protein conformations. In some cases, AF2 has successfully predicted both dominant and alternative conformations of fold-switching proteins, which remodel their secondary and tertiary structures in response to cellular stimuli. Whether AF2 has learned enough protein folding principles to reliably predict alternative conformations outside of its training set is unclear. Here, we address this question by assessing whether CFold-an implementation of the AF2 network trained on a more limited subset of experimentally determined protein structures- predicts alternative conformations of eight fold switchers from six protein families. Previous work suggests that AF2 predicted these alternative conformations by memorizing them during training. Unlike AF2, CFold's training set contains only one of these alternative conformations. Despite sampling 1300-4400 structures/protein with various sequence sampling techniques, CFold predicted only one alternative structure outside of its training set accurately and with high confidence while also generating experimentally inconsistent structures with higher confidence. Though these results indicate that AF2's current success in predicting alternative conformations of fold switchers stems largely from its training data, results from a sequence pruning technique suggest developments that could lead to a more reliable generative model in the future.

Indexed as

Fold-switching proteinsmetamorphic proteinsprotein structure predictionstructural bioinformatics

Identifiers

PMID39803493
PMCPMC11722258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
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.