Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42734519›Full record

ArticleJournal of chemical information and modeling2026

Biasing Conformational Sampling in AlphaFold 3 and Boltz-2 via Pair Representation Scaling.

Shosuke Suzuki, Toshiyuki Amagasa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of chemical information and modeling, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Shosuke SuzukiGraduate School of Science and Technology, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba305-8573, Japan.ORCID 0009-0001-3354-195X
Toshiyuki AmagasaCenter for Computational Sciences, University of Tsukuba, Tsukuba305-8577, Japan.

Funding

Japan Science and Technology Agency JPMJSP2124Japan Society for the Promotion of Science JP26KJ0653
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Deep learning has transformed protein structure prediction, yet most systems return a single dominant conformation with little control over the alternative functional states. We introduce pair representation scaling, an inference-time method that biases conformational sampling in diffusion-based structure predictors by multiplying the latent pair representation by a single scalar before the Pairformer trunk, without retraining, an auxiliary model, or a second forward pass. On 86 two-state targets spanning domain motions and membrane transporters, scaling broadens the conformational ensembles of both AlphaFold 3 and Boltz-2 and recovers alternative states that default inference misses, most strongly in AlphaFold 3, where the gains extend even to targets deposited after the training cutoff. It approaches the alternative-state recovery of alignment-based sampling methods, and the benefit persists even without a multiple-sequence alignment. The predicted distance distributions show that scaling shifts the encoded two-state distribution toward the experimentally observed alternative state, a directed modulation rather than an arbitrary perturbation. Pair representation scaling is an interpretable, low-cost handle for the conformational ensembles of deep-learning structure predictors.

Indexed as

Deep LearningProteinsModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProteins

Identifiers

PMID42734519
PMCPMC13580555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.