{"title":"灵活性还是不确定性?AlphaFold 2 pLDDT的关键评估","authors":"Yann Vander Meersche, Julien Diharce, Jean-Christophe Gelly, Tatiana Galochkina","doi":"10.1016/j.str.2025.09.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Release of AlphaFold 2 and subsequent development of AlphaFold 3 had a profound impact on protein structure prediction, providing near-experimental accuracy. However, the utility of AF2’s confidence index (pLDDT) as indicators of protein flexibility remains underexplored and debated. In this large-scale study, we evaluate AF2’s pLDDT as a predictor of protein flexibility by comparing it with flexibility metrics derived from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations from the ATLAS dataset, NMR ensembles, and experimental B-factors. We also assess the efficiency of ESMFold pLDDT and AlphaFold 3 in this context. Our findings reveal that AF2 pLDDT reasonably correlates with MD and NMR-derived flexibility metrics, but fails to capture flexibility in the presence of interacting partners, and therefore need to be cautiously interpreted. Furthermore, AF2 pLDDT appears more relevant than B-factor values for evaluation of protein flexibility. While AF3 shows slight improvements in capturing protein dynamics, MD simulations remain superior for comprehensive flexibility assessment.","PeriodicalId":22168,"journal":{"name":"Structure","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Flexibility or uncertainty? A critical assessment of AlphaFold 2 pLDDT\",\"authors\":\"Yann Vander Meersche, Julien Diharce, Jean-Christophe Gelly, Tatiana Galochkina\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.str.2025.09.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Release of AlphaFold 2 and subsequent development of AlphaFold 3 had a profound impact on protein structure prediction, providing near-experimental accuracy. However, the utility of AF2’s confidence index (pLDDT) as indicators of protein flexibility remains underexplored and debated. In this large-scale study, we evaluate AF2’s pLDDT as a predictor of protein flexibility by comparing it with flexibility metrics derived from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations from the ATLAS dataset, NMR ensembles, and experimental B-factors. We also assess the efficiency of ESMFold pLDDT and AlphaFold 3 in this context. Our findings reveal that AF2 pLDDT reasonably correlates with MD and NMR-derived flexibility metrics, but fails to capture flexibility in the presence of interacting partners, and therefore need to be cautiously interpreted. Furthermore, AF2 pLDDT appears more relevant than B-factor values for evaluation of protein flexibility. While AF3 shows slight improvements in capturing protein dynamics, MD simulations remain superior for comprehensive flexibility assessment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22168,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Structure\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Structure\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2025.09.001\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Structure","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.str.2025.09.001","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"BIOCHEMISTRY & MOLECULAR BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Flexibility or uncertainty? A critical assessment of AlphaFold 2 pLDDT
Release of AlphaFold 2 and subsequent development of AlphaFold 3 had a profound impact on protein structure prediction, providing near-experimental accuracy. However, the utility of AF2’s confidence index (pLDDT) as indicators of protein flexibility remains underexplored and debated. In this large-scale study, we evaluate AF2’s pLDDT as a predictor of protein flexibility by comparing it with flexibility metrics derived from molecular dynamics (MD) simulations from the ATLAS dataset, NMR ensembles, and experimental B-factors. We also assess the efficiency of ESMFold pLDDT and AlphaFold 3 in this context. Our findings reveal that AF2 pLDDT reasonably correlates with MD and NMR-derived flexibility metrics, but fails to capture flexibility in the presence of interacting partners, and therefore need to be cautiously interpreted. Furthermore, AF2 pLDDT appears more relevant than B-factor values for evaluation of protein flexibility. While AF3 shows slight improvements in capturing protein dynamics, MD simulations remain superior for comprehensive flexibility assessment.
期刊介绍:
Structure aims to publish papers of exceptional interest in the field of structural biology. The journal strives to be essential reading for structural biologists, as well as biologists and biochemists that are interested in macromolecular structure and function. Structure strongly encourages the submission of manuscripts that present structural and molecular insights into biological function and mechanism. Other reports that address fundamental questions in structural biology, such as structure-based examinations of protein evolution, folding, and/or design, will also be considered. We will consider the application of any method, experimental or computational, at high or low resolution, to conduct structural investigations, as long as the method is appropriate for the biological, functional, and mechanistic question(s) being addressed. Likewise, reports describing single-molecule analysis of biological mechanisms are welcome.
In general, the editors encourage submission of experimental structural studies that are enriched by an analysis of structure-activity relationships and will not consider studies that solely report structural information unless the structure or analysis is of exceptional and broad interest. Studies reporting only homology models, de novo models, or molecular dynamics simulations are also discouraged unless the models are informed by or validated by novel experimental data; rationalization of a large body of existing experimental evidence and making testable predictions based on a model or simulation is often not considered sufficient.