Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41556605›Full record

ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2026

Evaluating zero-shot prediction of monomeric protein design success by AlphaFold, ESMFold, and ProteinMPNN.

Mario Garcia, Sugyan M Dixit, Gabriel J Rocklin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Stabilizing Plasmodium falciparum proteins for small molecule drug discovery.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  5. Limitations of the refolding pipeline for de novo protein design.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors.

Mario GarciaDepartment of Pharmacology & Center for Synthetic Biology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6657-6921
Sugyan M DixitDepartment of Pharmacology & Center for Synthetic Biology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.
Gabriel J RocklinDepartment of Pharmacology & Center for Synthetic Biology, Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Funding

Molecular Biophysics Training Program at Northwestern UniversityT32GM140995 · NIGMS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY · PI Heather Wendy Pinkett, Reza Vafabakhsh · 2021 to 2026
$2.5M
High-throughput discovery of protein energy landscapes in natural and designed proteomesDP2GM140927 · NIGMS · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI Gabriel Jacob Rocklin · 2020 to 2026
$2.4M
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director's New Innovator Award DP2GM140927NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM140927NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM140995Northwestern Molecular Biophysics Training Program NIH5T32GM140995-04
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

De novo protein design has enabled the creation of proteins with diverse functionalities that are not found in nature. Despite recent advances, experimental success rates remain inconsistent and context-dependent, posing a bottleneck for broader applications of de novo design. To overcome this, structure and sequence prediction models have been applied to assess design quality prior to experimental testing to save time and resources. In this study, we examined the extent to which AlphaFold, Protein MPNN, and ESMFold can discriminate between experimentally successful and unsuccessful designs. We first curated a benchmark dataset of 614 experimentally characterized de novo designed monomers from 11 different design studies between 2012 and 2021. All predictive models demonstrated moderate ability to discriminate experimental successes (expressed, soluble, monomeric, and fold with the correct secondary structure) from failures. Still, many failed designs have better confidence metrics than successful designs, and confidence metrics were topology-dependent. Among all computational models evaluated, ESMFold average predicted local-distance difference test (pLDDT) yielded the best individual performance at distinguishing between successful and unsuccessful designs. A logistic regression model combining all confidence metrics provided only modest improvement over ESMFold pLDDT alone. Overall, these results show that these models can serve as an initial filtering strategy prior to experimental validation; however, their utility at accurately predicting experimentally successful designs remains limited without task-specific training.

Indexed as

Protein EngineeringProteinsAlgorithmsComputational BiologyModels, MolecularPrediction AlgorithmsProtein FoldingProtein Structure, SecondaryProteinsde novo protein designprotein biophysicssequence predictionstructure prediction

Identifiers

PMID41556605
PMCPMC12817478

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.