ArticleEnvironmental science & technology2025
Assessing AlphaFold 3 for Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Docking in Protein Structures.
Article in Environmental science & technology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) interferes with Cyp1a activity and dysregulates the aryl hydrocarbon receptor pathway in larval zebrafish (Danio rerio).Environmental pollution (Barking, Essex : 1987) · 2026Article
- Structure-Based Design and Mechanistic Insight for Enhanced Catalytic Activity of Aldo/Keto Reductase AKR13B3 fromToxins · 2026Article
- From environment to organs: individual and combined effects of MPs and PFAS on urinary system health.Frontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are persistent environmental pollutants that may pose health risks due to strong protein interactions. While AlphaFold 3 (AF3) was recently introduced for protein-ligand modeling with high claimed accuracy, its reliability for docking PFAS remains unclear. This study evaluates AF3's performance in predicting protein-PFAS interactions using a curated data set from the Protein Data Bank, divided into a "Before Set" (seen during AF3 training) and an "After Set" (unseen). AF3 accurately predicts protein structures and pockets but shows reduced performance in pocket-aligned ligand predictions, achieving ∼74.5% success in "Before Set" but only ∼55.8% in "After Set", indicative of possible overfitting. We further assess the effects of PFAS type on docking outcomes. Although AF3 accurately predicts binding pockets, it favors poses where the headgroup of environment-relevant PFAS interacts with polar or positively charged residues. This is different from another native binding mode in several cases, where the hydrophobic tail is inserted in the protein, but the headgroup is exposed to the solvent. Notably, a hybrid approach combining AF3 and Vina, especially considering multiple top-ranked poses, can improve prediction accuracy. These findings support the complementary use of AF3 and Vina for accurately modeling protein-PFAS interactions.
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.