ArticleCurrent research in structural biology2025
Evaluation of the structural models of the human reference proteome: AlphaFold2 versus ESMFold.
Article in Current research in structural biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cavity-Filling Mutations as a Strategy to Stabilize Prefusion Viral Fusion Proteins for Vaccine Design.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Balancing speed and precision in protein folding: a comparison of AlphaFold2, ESMFold, and OmegaFold.Frontiers in genetics · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The human reference proteome is routinely modelled with predictive tools such as AlphaFold2. We recently released a database in which, for each human protein, the AlphaFold2 model is paired with its ESMFold counterpart. The two predictive methods take advantage of different procedures and it is interesting to compare them in relation to their quality, particularly when an experimental protein structure is not available. Here, we select three state-of-the-art quality assessment methods and we adopt them to compare 42,942 pairs of models. This procedure helps to find the most reliable models for human proteins, particularly for the set of proteins for which structure prediction methods give dissimilar results. We obtain that when predicted structures are similar, AlphaFold2 models consistently receive higher scores than the ESMFold counterparts. When predicted structures differ, the ESMFold model is the best choice for 49 % of the proteins according to a consensus of the three QA tools.
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.