ArticleProteins2026
Assessment of Protein Complex Predictions in CASP16: Are We Making Progress?
Article in Proteins, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 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
19 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Advantages of AI for Computational Protein Studies and Looking Ahead at the Next Challenges: Single Structures Are Not Enough.Journal of molecular biology · 2026Review
- Discovering host-viral protein interactions in autophagy: A LIR discovery pipeline for identifying LC3-interacting region motifs in highly virulent viruses.PLoS pathogens · 2026Article
- Stoic: fast and accurate protein stoichiometry prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- The latest AI breakthroughs in structural biology: protein binder design and conformational state prediction.Communications biology · 2026Article
- Reciprocal best matching: a new pipeline for scoring models with unknown stoichiometry in CASP experiments.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Efficient global accuracy estimation for protein complex structural models using multi-view representation learning.Cell reports methods · 2026Article
- Assessment of Nucleic Acid Structure Prediction in CASP16.Proteins · 2026Article
- Unlocking the undruggable spliceosome: generative AI and structural dynamics in cancer therapy.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Updates to the CASP Infrastructure in 2024.Proteins · 2026Article
- Progress and Bottlenecks for Deep Learning in Computational Structure Biology: CASP Round XVI.Proteins · 2026Article
- Practical Outcomes From CASP16 for Users in Need of Biomolecular Structure Prediction.Proteins · 2026Review
- StoPred: Accurate Stoichiometry Prediction for Protein Complexes Using Protein Language Models and Graph Attention.Research square · 2025Article
- Blind prediction of complex water and ion ensembles around RNA in CASP16.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive benchmarking of the AlphaFold3 for predicting biomacromolecules and their interactions.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Improving B-cell epitope prediction.Drug discovery today · 2025Review
- StoPred: Accurate Stoichiometry Prediction for Protein Complexes Using Protein Language Models and Graph Attention.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Assessment of nucleic acid structure prediction in CASP16.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The assessment of oligomer targets in the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction Round 16 (CASP16) suggests that complex structure prediction remains an unsolved challenge. Even the leading groups can only predict slightly more than half of the targets to high accuracy. Most CASP16 groups relied on AlphaFold-Multimer (AFM) or AlphaFold3 (AF3) as their core modeling engines. By optimizing input MSAs, refining modeling constructs (using partial rather than full sequences), and employing massive model sampling and selection, top-performing groups were able to significantly outperform the default AFM/AF3 predictions. CASP16 also introduced two additional challenges: Phase 0, which required predictions without stoichiometry information, and Phase 2, which provided participants with thousands of models generated by MassiveFold (MF) to enable large-scale sampling for resource-limited groups. Across all phases, the MULTICOM series and Kiharalab emerged as top performers based on the quality of their best models. However, these groups did not have a strong advantage in model ranking, and thus their lead over other teams, such as Yang-Multimer and kozakovvajda, was less pronounced when evaluating only the first submitted models. Compared to CASP15, CASP16 showed moderate overall improvement, likely driven by the release of AF3 and the extensive model sampling employed by top groups. Several notable trends highlight frontiers for future development. First, the kozakovvajda group significantly outperformed others on antibody-antigen targets, achieving over a 60% success rate without relying on AFM or AF3 as their primary modeling framework, suggesting that alternative approaches may offer promising solutions for these difficult targets. Second, model ranking and selection continue to be major bottlenecks. The PEZYFoldings group demonstrated a notable advantage in selecting their best models as first models, suggesting that their pipeline for model ranking may offer important insights for the field. Finally, the Phase 0 experiment indicated moderate success in stoichiometry prediction; however, stoichiometry prediction remains challenging for high-order assemblies and targets that differ from available homologous templates. Overall, CASP16 demonstrated steady progress in multimer prediction while emphasizing the need for more effective model ranking strategies, improved stoichiometry prediction, and new modeling methods that extend beyond the current AF-based paradigm.
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.