ArticleNucleic acids research2026
The promise of AlphaFold for gene structure annotation.
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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Most new genomes lack annotation, automated methods are error-prone, and few genomes are ever manually curated due to time and cost. Protein structure predictions may offer a new route to assess and improve gene models without requiring experimental data. Here, we explore whether scores from protein structure prediction can aid in scoring gene model quality. We chose three species (Fusarium graminearum, Toxoplasma gondii, and Aspergillus fumigatus) from the VEuPathDB database that have collectively undergone more than 1000 manual curation events. We modelled translations of the gene models with AlphaFold 3, before and after curation, collecting various scores. Then we carried out structure searching of the PDB with Foldseek and sequence-based domain identification using InterProScan. We profiled the scores produced by these methods to identify those best for gene model assessment. AlphaFold 3 scores strongly favoured manually improved over pre-improvement gene models, supporting 65-84% of manually-curated changes. Combining scores across multiple tools (AlphaFold 3, Foldseek and InterProScan) provided further improvements in model scoring. Overall, the most discriminative scores combined the outputs of AlphaFold 3 and Foldseek. Importantly, we find that scores from the much faster Protenix-Mini retain the same discriminatory power as those from AlphaFold 3. Our results, therefore, highlight the potential of scores derived from deep learning-based protein structure prediction for scoring gene models in the absence of experimental data.
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.