ArticleBioinformatics advances2026
Benchmarking antibody modeling tools across structure prediction, docking, and paratope-epitope interface analysis.
Article in Bioinformatics advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Motivation: Computational antibody engineering requires reliable prediction of antibody variable-fragment structures, antigen-antibody complexes, and binding interfaces. However, publicly available tools for these tasks have rarely been compared across the complete workflow under a controlled and statistically grounded design. Results: We evaluated ImmuneBuilder, IgFold, AlphaFold3, GRAMM, and dyMEAN on 50 non-redundant humanized antibody-antigen complexes using multiple retained predictions and paired statistical testing. All three antibody structure predictors were accurate, with AlphaFold3 performing best overall and for the third complementarity-determining region of the heavy chain. AlphaFold3 also substantially outperformed GRAMM and dyMEAN in complex prediction, producing medium- or high-quality binding interfaces for 46% of the complexes, although overall interface accuracy remained limited. When docking was reliable, AlphaFold3 accurately recovered epitope and paratope residues, salt bridges, and non-bonded contacts, but reproduced hydrogen bonds and fine-grained contact strengths less consistently. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting tools across antibody-modeling workflows and identify persistent limitations in fine-grained interface prediction. Availability and implementation: Data, structural predictions, evaluation results, and analysis code are available from Zenodo under record 20710876.
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.