人类参考蛋白组结构模型的评估:AlphaFold2与ESMFold

IF 2.7 Q3 BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
Matteo Manfredi , Castrense Savojardo , Pier Luigi Martelli , Rita Casadio
{"title":"人类参考蛋白组结构模型的评估:AlphaFold2与ESMFold","authors":"Matteo Manfredi ,&nbsp;Castrense Savojardo ,&nbsp;Pier Luigi Martelli ,&nbsp;Rita Casadio","doi":"10.1016/j.crstbi.2025.100167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>The human reference proteome is routinely modelled with predictive tools such as AlphaFold2. We recently released a database in which, for each human protein, the AlphaFold2 model is paired with its ESMFold counterpart. The two predictive methods take advantage of different procedures and it is interesting to compare them in relation to their quality, particularly when an experimental protein structure is not available. Here, we select three state-of-the-art quality assessment methods and we adopt them to compare 42,942 pairs of models. This procedure helps to find the most reliable models for human proteins, particularly for the set of proteins for which structure prediction methods give dissimilar results. We obtain that when predicted structures are similar, AlphaFold2 models consistently receive higher scores than the ESMFold counterparts. When predicted structures differ, the ESMFold model is the best choice for 49 % of the proteins according to a consensus of the three QA tools.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":10870,"journal":{"name":"Current Research in Structural Biology","volume":"9 ","pages":"Article 100167"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of the structural models of the human reference proteome: AlphaFold2 versus ESMFold\",\"authors\":\"Matteo Manfredi ,&nbsp;Castrense Savojardo ,&nbsp;Pier Luigi Martelli ,&nbsp;Rita Casadio\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.crstbi.2025.100167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>The human reference proteome is routinely modelled with predictive tools such as AlphaFold2. We recently released a database in which, for each human protein, the AlphaFold2 model is paired with its ESMFold counterpart. The two predictive methods take advantage of different procedures and it is interesting to compare them in relation to their quality, particularly when an experimental protein structure is not available. Here, we select three state-of-the-art quality assessment methods and we adopt them to compare 42,942 pairs of models. This procedure helps to find the most reliable models for human proteins, particularly for the set of proteins for which structure prediction methods give dissimilar results. We obtain that when predicted structures are similar, AlphaFold2 models consistently receive higher scores than the ESMFold counterparts. When predicted structures differ, the ESMFold model is the best choice for 49 % of the proteins according to a consensus of the three QA tools.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10870,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Research in Structural Biology\",\"volume\":\"9 \",\"pages\":\"Article 100167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Research in Structural Biology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665928X25000042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Research in Structural Biology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665928X25000042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人类参考蛋白质组通常使用预测工具(如AlphaFold2)建模。我们最近发布了一个数据库,在这个数据库中,对于每个人类蛋白质,AlphaFold2模型都与它的ESMFold对应体配对。这两种预测方法利用了不同的程序,比较它们的质量是很有趣的,特别是在没有实验蛋白质结构的情况下。在这里,我们选择了三种最先进的质量评估方法,并采用它们对42,942对模型进行了比较。这一过程有助于找到最可靠的人类蛋白质模型,特别是对于结构预测方法给出不同结果的一组蛋白质。我们发现,当预测结构相似时,AlphaFold2模型始终比ESMFold模型获得更高的分数。当预测的结构不同时,根据三个QA工具的共识,ESMFold模型是49%的蛋白质的最佳选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of the structural models of the human reference proteome: AlphaFold2 versus ESMFold
The human reference proteome is routinely modelled with predictive tools such as AlphaFold2. We recently released a database in which, for each human protein, the AlphaFold2 model is paired with its ESMFold counterpart. The two predictive methods take advantage of different procedures and it is interesting to compare them in relation to their quality, particularly when an experimental protein structure is not available. Here, we select three state-of-the-art quality assessment methods and we adopt them to compare 42,942 pairs of models. This procedure helps to find the most reliable models for human proteins, particularly for the set of proteins for which structure prediction methods give dissimilar results. We obtain that when predicted structures are similar, AlphaFold2 models consistently receive higher scores than the ESMFold counterparts. When predicted structures differ, the ESMFold model is the best choice for 49 % of the proteins according to a consensus of the three QA tools.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
104 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信