Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41170922›Full record

ArticleProteins2026

Assessment of Protein Complex Predictions in CASP16: Are We Making Progress?

Jing Zhang, Rongqing Yuan, Andriy Kryshtafovych, Jimin Pei, Rachael C Kretsch, R Dustin Schaeffer, Jian Zhou, Rhiju Das, Nick V Grishin, Qian Cong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Stoic: fast and accurate protein stoichiometry prediction.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Blind prediction of complex water and ion ensembles around RNA in CASP16.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Improving B-cell epitope prediction.Drug discovery today · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Assessment of nucleic acid structure prediction in CASP16.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Jing ZhangEugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-4190-3065
Rongqing YuanEugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5917-4505
Andriy KryshtafovychGenome Center, University of California, Davis, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5066-7178
Jimin PeiEugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Rachael C KretschBiophysics Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6935-518X
R Dustin SchaefferDepartment of Biophysics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6502-1425
Jian ZhouLyda Hill Department of Bioinformatics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Rhiju DasBiophysics Program, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7497-0972
Nick V GrishinDepartment of Biophysics, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Qian CongEugene McDermott Center for Human Growth and Development, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8909-0414

Funding

Prospective analysis to determine model accuracy performance and boundaries in the post-AlphaFold2 environmentR01GM100482 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI FIDELIS, KRZYSZTOF A · 2012 to 2025
$11.1M
Next-generation computational/chemical methods for complex RNA structuresR35GM122579 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI Rhiju Das · 2017 to 2026
$7.2M
Sequence models of genome regulatory architecture in 3DDP2GM146336 · NIGMS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI ZHOU, JIAN · 2021 to 2024
$2.5M
ECOD: Large scale classification of predicted and experimental protein structuresR01GM147367 · NIGMS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI Richard Dustin Schaeffer · 2023 to 2026
$1.4M
Harnessing the Power of Data and Artificial Intelligence to Resolve the Human 3D InteractomeR35GM160468 · NIGMS · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI Qian Cong · 2025 to 2026
$883k
Functions of Rapidly-Evolving Proteins and Their Roles in PathogenicityK99AI180984 · NIAID · UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER · PI ZHANG, JING · 2024 to 2025
$210k
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNational Science Foundation 2224128National Science Foundation 2330652NIAID NIH HHS K99 AI180984NIGMS NIH HHS 1R35GM160468-01NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM146336NIGMS NIH HHS GM147367NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100482NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM147367NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM122579NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM160468NIH HHSStanford Bio-X (Bowes Graduate Student Fellowship)Welch Foundation I-1505Welch Foundation I-2095-20220331
6 · The paper itself

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

Computational BiologyModels, MolecularProteinsSoftwareAlgorithmsDatabases, ProteinProtein ConformationProtein FoldingProteinsAlphaFold2AlphaFold3antigen–antibody interactionCASP16model samplingoligomer predictionstoichiometry

Identifiers

PMID41170922
PMCPMC12750043

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.