PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
October 16, 2025Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics4 citationsOpen Access

Practical Outcomes From CASP16 for Users in Need of Biomolecular Structure Prediction

View Full Paper
LALuciano A. AbriataMPMatteo Dal Peraro

Key Points

  • AF3 shows improvements over AF2, achieving state-of-the-art modeling capabilities across biomolecular structures.
  • Protein-ligand co-folding with AF3 demonstrates strong pose prediction, outperforming many docking tools and baseline tests.
  • Protein assemblies benefit from a priori knowledge of stoichiometry, though complex topologies remain challenging.
  • Nucleic acid structure prediction relies heavily on 3D templates and human expertise, highlighting substantial limitations.

Abstract

ABSTRACT The 16th Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction benchmarked advancements in biomolecular modeling, particularly in the context of AlphaFold 2 and 3 systems. Protein monomer and domain prediction is largely solved, with barely any space for further improvements at the backbone level except for very specific details, irregular secondary structures, and mutational effects that remain challenging to predict. For protein assemblies, AF‐based methods, especially when expertly guided or enhanced by servers like those from the Yang, Zheng/Zhang, and Cheng lab, show progress, though complex topologies and in particular antibody–antigen interactions are still difficult. Notably, a priori knowledge of stoichiometry significantly aids assembly prediction. Protein‐ligand co‐folding with AF3 demonstrated strong potential for pose prediction, outperforming many participants and some dedicated docking tools in baseline tests, but several caveats hold as discussed. Ligand affinity prediction is totally unreliable. Nucleic acid structure prediction lags considerably, heavily relying on 3D templates and expert human intervention, even AF3 showing substantial limitations. Overall, on all fronts, AF3's modeling capabilities are at or close to the state of the art; additionally, it shows slight improvements over AF2 and more detailed confidence metrics than it. We guide users on tool selection, realistic accuracy expectations, and persistent challenges, emphasizing the critical role of confidence metrics in interpreting AI‐generated models.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Abriata et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/68f0f51d8dd8ea469b1d6ea7https://doi.org/10.1002/prot.70078
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Accelerating Biomolecular Modeling with AtomWorks and RF32025 · 35 citations
  2. 2CASP16 protein monomer structure prediction assessment2025 · 5 citations
  3. 3Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality2004 · 2,567 citations
  4. 4Improving AlphaFold2 and 3-based protein complex structure prediction with MULTICOM4 in CASP162025 · 2 citations
  5. 5MassiveFold: unveiling AlphaFold’s hidden potential with optimized and parallelized massive sampling2024 · 53 citations