Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41345395›Full record

ArticleNature communications2025

Benchmarking all-atom biomolecular structure prediction with FoldBench.

Sheng Xu, Qiantai Feng, Lifeng Qiao, Hao Wu, Tao Shen, Yu Cheng, Shuangjia Zheng, Siqi Sun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of methods for AlphaFold-based integrative modeling.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A simple probabilistic AlphaFold interaction score.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. A Chromatin Biology Assessment of AlphaFold3.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

8 authors.

Sheng Xu *Research Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6507-9122
Qiantai Feng *Research Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Lifeng QiaoSchool of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China.
Hao WuResearch Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Tao ShenResearch Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University, Shanghai, China.
Yu ChengComputer Science and Engineering, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. chengyu@cse.cuhk.edu.hk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7901-8662
Shuangjia ZhengSchool of Artificial Intelligence, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China. shuangjia.zheng@sjtu.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9747-4285
Siqi SunResearch Institute of Intelligent Complex Systems, Fudan University, Shanghai, China. siqisun@fudan.edu.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7240-8724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate prediction of biomolecular complex structures is fundamental for understanding biological processes and rational therapeutic design. Recent advances in deep learning methods, particularly all-atom structure prediction models, have significantly expanded their capabilities to include diverse biomolecular entities, such as proteins, nucleic acids, ligands, and ions. However, comprehensive benchmarks covering multiple interaction types and molecular diversity remain scarce, limiting fair and rigorous assessment of model performance and generalizability. To address this gap, we introduce FoldBench, an extensive benchmark dataset consisting of 1522 biological assemblies categorized into nine distinct prediction tasks. Our evaluations reveal critical performance dependencies, showing that ligand docking accuracy notably diminishes as ligand similarity to the training set decreases, a pattern similarly observed in protein-protein interaction modeling. Furthermore, antibody-antigen predictions remain particularly challenging, with current methods exhibiting failure rates exceeding 50%. Among evaluated models, AlphaFold 3 consistently demonstrates superior accuracy across the majority of tasks. In summary, our results highlight significant advancements yet reveal persistent limitations within the field, providing crucial insights and benchmarks to inform future model development and refinement.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProteinsBenchmarkingDatabases, ProteinDeep LearningLigandsModels, MolecularMolecular Docking SimulationProtein ConformationLigandsProteins

Identifiers

PMID41345395
PMCPMC12800276

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.