A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold2 applications
-
Published:2022-11
Issue:11
Volume:29
Page:1056-1067
-
ISSN:1545-9993
-
Container-title:Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Nat Struct Mol Biol
Author:
Akdel Mehmet, Pires Douglas E. V., Pardo Eduard Porta, Jänes JürgenORCID, Zalevsky Arthur O.ORCID, Mészáros Bálint, Bryant PatrickORCID, Good Lydia L.ORCID, Laskowski Roman A.ORCID, Pozzati GabrieleORCID, Shenoy AditiORCID, Zhu Wensi, Kundrotas Petras, Serra Victoria RuizORCID, Rodrigues Carlos H. M.ORCID, Dunham Alistair S.ORCID, Burke DavidORCID, Borkakoti Neera, Velankar SameerORCID, Frost AdamORCID, Basquin Jérôme, Lindorff-Larsen KrestenORCID, Bateman AlexORCID, Kajava Andrey V.ORCID, Valencia AlfonsoORCID, Ovchinnikov SergeyORCID, Durairaj JananiORCID, Ascher David B.ORCID, Thornton Janet M.ORCID, Davey Norman E.ORCID, Stein AmelieORCID, Elofsson ArneORCID, Croll Tristan I.ORCID, Beltrao PedroORCID
Abstract
AbstractMost proteins fold into 3D structures that determine how they function and orchestrate the biological processes of the cell. Recent developments in computational methods for protein structure predictions have reached the accuracy of experimentally determined models. Although this has been independently verified, the implementation of these methods across structural-biology applications remains to be tested. Here, we evaluate the use of AlphaFold2 (AF2) predictions in the study of characteristic structural elements; the impact of missense variants; function and ligand binding site predictions; modeling of interactions; and modeling of experimental structural data. For 11 proteomes, an average of 25% additional residues can be confidently modeled when compared with homology modeling, identifying structural features rarely seen in the Protein Data Bank. AF2-based predictions of protein disorder and complexes surpass dedicated tools, and AF2 models can be used across diverse applications equally well compared with experimentally determined structures, when the confidence metrics are critically considered. In summary, we find that these advances are likely to have a transformative impact in structural biology and broader life-science research.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Molecular Biology,Structural Biology
Reference81 articles.
1. Burley, S. K. et al. RCSB Protein Data Bank: powerful new tools for exploring 3D structures of biological macromolecules for basic and applied research and education in fundamental biology, biomedicine, biotechnology, bioengineering and energy sciences. Nucleic Acids Res. 49, D437–D451 (2021). 2. Thomas, J., Ramakrishnan, N. & Bailey-Kellogg, C. Graphical models of residue coupling in protein families. IEEE/ACM Trans. Comput. Biol. Bioinform. 5, 183–197 (2008). 3. Dunn, S. D., Wahl, L. M. & Gloor, G. B. Mutual information without the influence of phylogeny or entropy dramatically improves residue contact prediction. Bioinformatics 24, 333–340 (2008). 4. Bartlett, G. J. & Taylor, W. R. Using scores derived from statistical coupling analysis to distinguish correct and incorrect folds in de-novo protein structure prediction. Proteins 71, 950–959 (2008). 5. Wang, S., Sun, S., Li, Z., Zhang, R. & Xu, J. Accurate de novo prediction of protein contact map by ultra-deep learning model. PLoS Comput. Biol. 13, e1005324 (2017).
Cited by
322 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
|
|