ArticleeLife2026
Large-scale prospective evaluation of co-folding across hundreds of Mac1-ligand complexes and three virtual screens.
Article in eLife, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Target discovery and drug design in the era of artificial intelligence.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2026Review
- Structural Plasticity and Ligand Promiscuity of CYP3A4 Revealed by Cryo-EM.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate prediction of ligand-bound protein complexes and ranking them by affinity are central problems in drug discovery. While deep-learning co-folding methods can help address these challenges, their evaluation has been hampered by the difficulties in assessing independence from training data and insufficiently large test sets. Here, we test the ability of co-folding methods to predict the structures of 551 ligands, 489 of which are of sufficient quality for evaluation, bound to the SARS-CoV-2 NSP3 macrodomain (Mac1) that were determined after the training cutoff dates. AlphaFold3 (AF3), Boltz-2, and Chai-1 each reproduced >50% of the Mac1 ligand poses to better than 2 Å root-mean-square deviation of experiment. Despite the potential for co-folding to describe protein conformational changes that stabilize ligand binding, we did not find that common conformational rearrangements, including peptide flip and a large loop opening, were recapitulated by the co-folding prediction. For AF3 and Chai-1, ligand pose prediction confidence weakly, but significantly, tracked experimental potency, while DOCK3.7 energies were only weakly correlated. Boltz-2 affinity predictions showed the strongest correlation with measured potency and, after calibration, achieved lower mean absolute error than a baseline predictor. We next assessed whether co-folding scores could rescore docking hit lists to distinguish true ligands from non-binders among hundreds of molecules prospectively experimentally tested against AmpC β-lactamase, the dopamine D4, and the σ
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.