ArticleNucleic acids research2026
A structure-guided approach to noncoding variant evaluation for transcription factor binding using AlphaFold 3.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Functional and regulatory complexity: challenges and prospects for understanding rice WRKY transcription factors.Journal of experimental botany · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Noncoding single-nucleotide variants (SNVs) that alter transcription factor (TF) binding can affect gene expression and contribute to disease. Sequence-based methods can excel at predicting TF binding, but rely on training data and can exhibit TF-specific biases. Here, we propose a structure-guided approach for noncoding SNVs, using AlphaFold 3 (AF3) to model TF-DNA complexes and FoldX for downstream physics-based assessment. Benchmarked against single nucleotide polymorphism-systematic evolution of ligands by exponential enrichment (SNP-SELEX) data for six TFs (SPIB, ELK3, ETV4, SF-1, PAX5, and MEIS2), the FoldX-based strategy showed good agreement with experimental allele preferences. Interestingly, differences in AF3's interface-predicted template modelling (ipTM) score aligned even more closely with SNP-SELEX results, generally surpassing energy-based metrics. Application to known disease-associated variants recapitulated most reported effects for TFs including NKX2-5, GATA3, and USF2A-USF1. In these examples, considering both ΔipTM and FoldX energies proved more reliable than either metric alone. While less accurate than state-of-the-art sequence-based methods, this work demonstrates that structural modelling can yield interpretable insights into how noncoding variants influence TF binding. By highlighting both the promise and limitations of AF3 in this context, our study provides a framework for complementary structural evaluation of regulatory variants.
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.