ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2025
CASP16 protein monomer structure prediction assessment.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The assessment of monomer targets in the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction Round 16 (CASP16) underscores that the problem of single-domain protein fold prediction is nearly solved-no target folds were incorrectly predicted across all Evaluation Units. However, challenges remain in accurately modeling truncated sequences, irregular secondary structures, and interaction-induced conformational changes. The release of AlphaFold3 (AF3) during CASP16, and its effective integration by many groups, demonstrated its superiority over AlphaFold2 (AF2), particularly in confidence estimation and model selection. Additional improvements in multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and fragment-based prediction, i.e., selecting the optimal fragment of the full sequence for modeling, also contributed to enhanced prediction accuracy. The top three groups-all from the Yang lab-consistently outperformed others across CASP16 monomer targets, reflecting their robust modeling pipelines and successful adoption of AF3. CASP16 also introduced three new challenges: Phase 0, in which stoichiometry was withheld; Phase 2, which supplied ~8,000 MassiveFold models per target to test model selection strategies; and Model 6, which limited predictors to using MSAs provided by the organizers. While we evaluated group performance in these additional challenges, the insights gained were limited due to low participation and caveats in the design of experiments. We suggest improvements for the organization of these challenges and encourage broader engagement from the prediction community. The progress in monomer modeling from CASP15 to CASP16 was subtle, but more groups in CASP16 were able to outperform ColabFold, reflecting the community's improved ability in optimizing AF2 and the growing adoption of AF3. We anticipate that the recent release of the AF3 source code will stimulate future progress through user-driven optimization and innovations in model architecture. Finally, model ranking remains a persistent weakness across most groups, highlighting a critical area for future development.
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.