Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40131945›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Navigating the unstructured by evaluating alphafold's efficacy in predicting missing residues and structural disorder in proteins.

Sen Zheng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
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

1 author.

Sen ZhengBio-Electron Microscopy Facility, iHuman Institution, ShanghaiTech University, Shanghai, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-2438-5832

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The study investigated regions with undefined structures, known as "missing" segments in X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (Cryo-EM) data, by assessing their predicted structural confidence and disorder scores. Utilizing a comprehensive dataset from the Protein Data Bank (PDB), residues were categorized as "modeled", "hard missing" and "soft missing" based on their visibility in structural datasets. Key features were determined, including a confidence score predicted local distance difference test (pLDDT) from AlphaFold2, an advanced structural prediction tool, and a disorder score from IUPred, a traditional disorder prediction method. To enhance prediction performance for unstructured residues, we employed a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) model, integrating both scores with amino acid sequences. Notable patterns such as composition, region lengths and prediction scores were observed in unstructured residues and regions identified through structural experiments over our studied period. Our findings also indicate that "hard missing" residues often align with low confidence scores, whereas "soft missing" residues exhibit dynamic behavior that can complicate predictions. The incorporation of pLDDT, IUPred scores, and sequence data into the LSTM model has improved the differentiation between structured and unstructured residues, particularly for shorter unstructured regions. This research elucidates the relationship between established computational predictions and experimental structural data, enhancing our ability to target structurally significant areas for research and guiding experimental designs toward functionally relevant regions.

Indexed as

Intrinsically Disordered ProteinsProteinsAmino Acid SequenceComputational BiologyCryoelectron MicroscopyCrystallography, X-RayDatabases, ProteinModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingIntrinsically Disordered ProteinsProteins

Identifiers

PMID40131945
PMCPMC11936262

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.