Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42862223›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2027

Predicting RNA and Protein:RNA Complexes with AlphaFold: Possibilities, Limitations, and Practical Guidelines.

Marcin J Suskiewicz

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2027. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Marcin J SuskiewiczCentre de Biophysique Moléculaire, CNRS, Orléans, France. marcin.suskiewicz@cnrs-orleans.fr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3279-6571

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

AlphaFold 3 (AF3) extends deep learning-based structural prediction beyond proteins to other biomolecules, but its reliability for RNA and protein:RNA complexes remains uncertain. This chapter examines AF3's applicability to these targets from both theoretical and practical perspectives. RNA differs fundamentally from proteins in ways that challenge AF3's framework: RNA structures are more conformationally heterogeneous and more condition-dependent. Furthermore, RNA-related training data in the Protein Data Bank are scarce and lack the diversity of protein data, limiting both structural prediction itself and the reliability of AF3's self-assessment confidence metrics. Benchmarking studies and individual case analyses suggest that, in the RNA realm, AF3 may function primarily through memorization of known structural motifs and homology-based modeling rather than genuine global de novo prediction; nevertheless, it performs competitively with established RNA prediction tools and can serve as an attractive hypothesis generator. Practical guidelines are offered for using AF3 with RNA-containing systems, emphasizing the importance of careful interpretation of confidence metrics, visual inspection, and experimental validation. Future improvements will likely require expanded RNA structural data, better exploitation of evolutionary information, and potentially alternative representations of RNA structure beyond rigid 3D models.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyProteinsRNARNA-Binding ProteinsModels, MolecularNucleic Acid ConformationPrediction AlgorithmsSoftwareProteinsRNARNA-Binding ProteinsAlphaFoldAlphaFold3Protein–RNA interactionsProtein–RNA structure predictionRNARNA-binding proteinsRNA structure prediction

Identifiers

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.