ArticleProteins2026
Progress and Bottlenecks for Deep Learning in Computational Structure Biology: CASP Round XVI.
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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond affinity: AI-supported developability assessment and multi-objective optimization in antibody development.Antibody therapeutics · 2026Review
- Which Metrics Best Capture Protein Structural Changes in Molecular Dynamics Simulations? Evaluating Score Combinations and Force-Field Effects.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- A simple probabilistic AlphaFold interaction score.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Benchmarking AI Protein Structure Predictors Reveals a Persistent Bias in Multi-State Proteins.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Benchmarking AlphaFold and related deep learning approaches for modeling antibody and TCR antigen recognition.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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
- Experimental Data Driven AI Framework for Flexible Protein Conformational Reconstruction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Bioinformatic and computational biophysics tools for nanopore engineering: a review from standard approaches to machine learning advancements.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2026Review
- ProNA3D: Distance-Based Analysis of Nucleic Acid-Containing Interfaces.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Progress and Bottlenecks for Deep Learning in Computational Structure Biology: CASP Round XVI.Proteins · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.