AlphaFold3 at CASP16
- PMID: 40851426
- DOI: 10.1002/prot.70044
AlphaFold3 at CASP16
Abstract
The CASP16 experiment provided the first opportunity to benchmark AlphaFold3. In contrast to AlphaFold2, AlphaFold3 can predict the structure of non-protein molecules. According to the benchmark presented by the developers, it is expected to perform slightly better than AlphaFold2 for proteins. In this study, we assess the performance of AlphaFold3 using both automatic server submissions (AF3-server) and manual predictions from the Elofsson group (Elofsson). All predictions were generated via the AlphaFold3 web server, with manual interventions applied to large targets and ligands. Compared to AlphaFold2-based methods, we found that AlphaFold3 performs slightly better for protein complexes. However, when massive sampling is applied to AlphaFold2, the difference disappears. It was also noted that, according to the official ranking from CASP, the AF3-server performs better than AlphaFold2 for easier targets, but not for harder targets. Furthermore, the performance of the AF3-server is comparable to the best methods when considering the top-ranked predictions, but slightly behind when examining the best among the five submitted models. Here, there exist targets where AF3-server, the top-ranked method, is worse than lower-ranked models, indicating that a venue for progress could be to develop better strategies for identifying the best out of the generated models. When using AF3-server to predict the stoichiometry of larger protein complexes, the accuracy is limited, especially for heteromeric targets. When analyzing the predictions including nucleic acids, it was found that, in general, the accuracy is relatively low. However, the AF3-server performance was not far behind that of the top-ranked method. In summary, AF3-server offers a user-friendly tool that provides predictions comparable to state-of-the-art methods in all categories of CASP.
Keywords: AlphaFold; CASP; RNA structure prediction; protein structure predictions.
© 2025 The Author(s). PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.
References
-
- A. Coucke, G. Uguzzoni, F. Oteri, S. Cocco, R. Monasson, and M. Weigt, “Direct Coevolutionary Couplings Reflect Biophysical Residue Interactions in Proteins,” Journal of Chemical Physics 145, no. 17 (2016): 174102.
-
- M. Weigt, R. A. White, H. Szurmant, J. A. Hoch, and T. Hwa, “Identification of Direct Residue Contacts in Protein‐Protein Interaction by Message Passing,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 106, no. 1 (2009): 67–72.
-
- M. Michel, M. J. Skwark, D. Menéndez Hurtado, M. Ekeberg, and A. Elofsson, “Predicting Accurate Contacts in Thousands of Pfam Domain Families Using PconsC3,” Bioinformatics 33, no. 18 (2017): 2859–2866.
-
- D. S. Marks, L. J. Colwell, R. Sheridan, et al., “Protein 3D Structure Computed From Evolutionary Sequence Variation,” PLoS One 6, no. 12 (2011): e28766.
-
- J. I. Sułkowska, F. Morcos, M. Weigt, T. Hwa, and J. N. Onuchic, “Genomics‐Aided Structure Prediction,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, no. 26 (2012): 10340–10345.
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources