Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41178755›Full record

ArticleProteins2026

Progress and Bottlenecks for Deep Learning in Computational Structure Biology: CASP Round XVI.

Andriy Kryshtafovych, Torsten Schwede, Maya Topf, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult

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 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing 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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. A simple probabilistic AlphaFold interaction score.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. ProNA3D: Distance-Based Analysis of Nucleic Acid-Containing Interfaces.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Andriy KryshtafovychGenome Center, University of California, California, US.ORCID 0000-0001-5066-7178
Torsten SchwedeBiozentrum, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0003-2715-335X
Maya TopfLeibniz Institute of Virology and Centre for Structural Systems Biology, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-8185-1215
Krzysztof FidelisGenome Center, University of California, California, US.ORCID 0000-0002-8061-412X
John MoultInstitute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research, Rockville, Maryland, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3012-2282

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
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM100482NIH HHSUS National Institute of General Medical Sciences R01GM100482
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

CASP16 is the most recent in a series of community experiments to rigorously assess the state of the art in areas of computational structural biology. The field has advanced enormously in recent years: in early CASPs, the assessments centered around whether the methods were at all useful. Now they mostly focus on how near we are to not needing experiments. In most areas, deep learning methods dominate, particularly AlphaFold variants and associated technology. In this round, there is no significant change in overall agreement between calculated monomer protein structures and their experimental counterparts, not because of method deficiencies but because, for most proteins, agreement is likely as high as can be obtained given experimental uncertainty. For protein complexes, huge gains in accuracy were made in the previous CASP, but there still appears to be room for further improvement. In contrast to these encouraging results, for RNA structures, the deep learning methods are notably unsuccessful at present and are not superior to traditional approaches. Both approaches still produce very poor results in the absence of structural homology. For macromolecular ensembles, the small CASP target set limits conclusions, but generally, in the absence of structural templates, results tend to be poor and detailed structures of alternative conformations are usually of relatively low accuracy. For organic ligand-protein structures and affinities (important for aspects of drug design), deep learning methods are substantially more successful than traditional ones on the relatively easy CASP target set, though the results often fall short of experimental accuracy. In the less glamorous but essential area of methods for estimating the accuracy, previous results found reliable accuracy estimates at the amino acid level. The present CASP results show that the best methods are also largely effective in selecting models of protein complexes with high interface accuracy. Will upcoming method improvements overcome the remaining barriers to reaching experimental accuracy in all categories? We will have to wait until the next CASP to find out, but there are two promising trends. One is the combination of traditional physics-inspired methods and deep learning, and the other is the expected increase in training data, especially for ligand-protein complexes.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDeep LearningProteinsHumansModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein FoldingRNASoftwareProteinsRNACASPCASP16community wide experimentmacromolecular ensemblesmodel accuracyprotein‐ligand complexesprotein structure predictionRNA structure prediction

Identifiers

PMID41178755
PMCPMC12703882

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.