ArticleProteins2025
Assessing Structural Classification Using AlphaFold2 Models Through ECOD-Based Comparative Analysis.
Article in Proteins, 2025. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Identifying homologous proteins is a fundamental task in structural bioinformatics. While AlphaFold2 has revolutionized protein structure prediction, the extent to which structure comparison of its models can reliably detect homologs remains unclear. In this study, we evaluate the feasibility of homology detection using AlphaFold2-predicted structures through structural comparisons. We considered the classification of the ECOD database for experimental structures as the correct standard and obtained their corresponding predicted models from AlphaFoldDB. To ensure blind assessment, we divided the structures into test and train sets according to their release date. Predicted and experimental 3D structures in the test and train sets were compared using 3D structure comparisons (MATRAS, Dali, and Foldseek) and sequence comparisons (BLAST and HHsearch). The results were evaluated based on the homology annotations in the ECOD database. For top-1 accuracy, the performance of structural comparisons was comparable to that of HHsearch. However, when considering metrics that included all structural pairs, including more remote homology, structural comparisons outperformed HHsearch. No significant differences were observed between comparisons of experimental versus experimental, predicted versus experimental, and predicted versus predicted structures with pLDDT (prediction confidence) values greater than 60. We also demonstrate that predicted protein structures, determined by NMR, had lower pLDDT values and contained fewer coils than their experimental counterparts. These findings highlight the potential of AlphaFold2 models in structural classification and suggest that 3D structural searches should be conducted not only against the PDB but also against AlphaFoldDB to identify more potential homologs.
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.