ReviewProteins2026
Practical Outcomes From CASP16 for Users in Need of Biomolecular Structure Prediction.
Review in Proteins, 2026. 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.
- The latest AI breakthroughs in structural biology: protein binder design and conformational state prediction.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in drug research and development: a review of methods and applications in drug repurposing.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Review
- Practical Outcomes From CASP16 for Users in Need of Biomolecular Structure Prediction.Proteins · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The 16th Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction benchmarked advancements in biomolecular modeling, particularly in the context of AlphaFold 2 and 3 systems. Protein monomer and domain prediction is largely solved, with barely any space for further improvements at the backbone level except for very specific details, irregular secondary structures, and mutational effects that remain challenging to predict. For protein assemblies, AF-based methods, especially when expertly guided or enhanced by servers like those from the Yang, Zheng/Zhang, and Cheng lab, show progress, though complex topologies and in particular antibody-antigen interactions are still difficult. Notably, a priori knowledge of stoichiometry significantly aids assembly prediction. Protein-ligand co-folding with AF3 demonstrated strong potential for pose prediction, outperforming many participants and some dedicated docking tools in baseline tests, but several caveats hold as discussed. Ligand affinity prediction is totally unreliable. Nucleic acid structure prediction lags considerably, heavily relying on 3D templates and expert human intervention, even AF3 showing substantial limitations. Overall, on all fronts, AF3's modeling capabilities are at or close to the state of the art; additionally, it shows slight improvements over AF2 and more detailed confidence metrics than it. We guide users on tool selection, realistic accuracy expectations, and persistent challenges, emphasizing the critical role of confidence metrics in interpreting AI-generated models.
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.