ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2026
Evaluating zero-shot prediction of monomeric protein design success by AlphaFold, ESMFold, and ProteinMPNN.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- De novo generation and computational screening of dual-targeting short peptide inhibitors against PBP2b and PBP2x in drug-resistant Streptococcus Pneumoniae.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Soluble protein analog selection engine (SPASE): An automated AI-powered server to improve protein engineering workflows.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- RINAMI: Residue-attributed interpretable neural network for predicting absolute folding free energy by merging structure and sequence information.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Stabilizing Plasmodium falciparum proteins for small molecule drug discovery.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Limitations of the refolding pipeline for de novo protein design.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Accurate protein stability prediction for small domains using mega-scale experiments.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Evaluating zero-shot prediction of monomeric protein design success by AlphaFold, ESMFold, and ProteinMPNN.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Gas Vesicles and Acoustic Protein Nanostructures in Molecular Ultrasound Nanomedicine: Translational Archetypes, Biomaterial Design, and Barriers to Clinical Realization.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Adversarial Sequence Mutations in AlphaFold and ESMFold Reveal Nonphysical Structural Invariance, Confidence Failures, and Concerns for Protein Design.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Fitness Landscape for Antibodies 2: Benchmarking Reveals That Protein AI Models Cannot Yet Consistently Predict Developability Properties.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
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
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
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.