~/aixsci
200 records · all checked

structural-biology/ai produced the result/Protein Science 2025 · v2

Five structure-prediction models tested on 509 protein–peptide pairs under altered inputs

Researchers ran AlphaFold2, AlphaFold2-Multimer, AlphaFold3, Boltz-1 and Chai-1 over 509 known protein–peptide complexes, then fed the same models deliberately degraded inputs to see what their predictions actually depend on.

1. Curate non-redundant protein-peptide test set2. Construct sequence alignments and alternative inputs3. Predict complex structures with five models4. Score predictions against experimental structures5. Search training data for binding-site matches6. Re-run models under input and attention ablations7. Analyse what drives prediction accuracy

spectrum · one line per step, placed by what the step does · bright lines used AI

Training bias and sequence alignments shape protein–peptide docking by AlphaFold and related methods
Protein Science, 2025

doi:10.1002/pro.70331 · record aix-00164 v2 · checked 2026-10-09

ai-resultrole of AI
AI was for
Structure determination
Model family
Transformer, Diffusion model
Checked by
Held-out509 tested
Code
not reported

The finding the paper is about came from the AI.

read as

The science is explained before the AI appears. Switch to field specialist to go straight to the method.

Assumes the discipline and goes straight to the method.

The diagram, the record and what the paper did not report are identical in both modes. Only the framing changes — never the evidence.

Introduction by AIxSci · plain language

What this research was about

Many jobs inside a cell are done by a short stretch of protein — a peptide — settling into a groove on the surface of a larger protein. Working out the shape such a pair makes, and where exactly the peptide sits, normally means growing crystals or using other laboratory methods on one complex at a time. Software that predicts these shapes from sequence alone would be much quicker. But a peptide is short and floppy, with few of its own structural clues, so a prediction that comes out right does not by itself tell you what the program used to get there.

The authors assembled a set of 509 protein–peptide complexes whose shapes had already been determined experimentally, filtering entries from the public structure database by peptide length, the presence of helper molecules and crystal contacts near the binding site. They then asked a narrower question than how often prediction software is correct: what information it leans on when it is.

Where AI came in

Five released prediction models — AlphaFold2, AlphaFold2-Multimer, AlphaFold3, Boltz-1 and Chai-1 — did the structure prediction. None was trained or adjusted here; each was run as supplied, taking the top-ranked of five predictions, and the results were scored against the experimental structures. In this step the software stood in for the laboratory work that would otherwise have resolved each shape.

The same models were then re-run on altered inputs. These programs normally read a stack of related sequences from other species, an alignment, alongside the sequence of interest. The authors supplied alignments with the species pairings shuffled, alignments with the peptide's own removed, peptide sequences replaced by blanks, scrambled residues or plain glycine, and experimental structures as templates. For one model they also blocked parts of its internal attention between chains. Separately they counted how often each binding site already appeared in a model's training data.

Written by AIxSci from the checked record below, to give context for readers outside the field. It is not part of the record.

The work

Technical · from the record

The authors assembled a non-redundant set of 509 experimentally resolved protein-peptide complexes and predicted each one with AlphaFold2, AlphaFold2-Multimer, AlphaFold3, Boltz-1 and Chai-1, scoring the predictions against the experimental structures with DockQ. Comparing a 68-structure post-training-cutoff set with the 68 latest pre-cutoff structures, and separately counting how often each binding site appeared in each model's training data, they found lower accuracy for AlphaFold3, Boltz-1 and Chai-1 on post-cutoff structures and for binding sites with no match in the training set. A series of alignment manipulations showed little accuracy difference between paired and species-shuffled paired alignments, while removing the peptide alignment improved 17%-26% of predictions when present; of complexes predicted successfully with the peptide sequence supplied, 40%-51% remained successful when that sequence was replaced by mask tokens.

How AI was used

Five released structure-prediction models were run as inference engines over a curated test set of protein-peptide complexes, with no model fitted or fine-tuned in this study. Predictions were made from sequence with unpaired multiple-sequence alignments and no templates, taking the top-ranked of five predictions, and compared to the experimental structures using DockQ, backbone and all-atom RMSD, native-contact recovery, TM-score and DSSP-assigned secondary structure, alongside the models' own confidence outputs. The same models were then re-run under systematically altered inputs: no alignments, deeper paired alignments built from UniProt parent sequences with 50 or 100 residues of flanking context, those paired alignments with protein-peptide pairings shuffled, peptide alignments removed, native structures supplied as templates in place of alignments, peptide sequences replaced by unknown tokens, poly-glycine or scrambled residues, and Boltz-1 pocket residues or a Chai-1 distance restraint supplied. For AlphaFold2-Multimer, row- and column-wise self-attention between rows and columns belonging to different chains was masked inside the Evoformer, and masked-peptide predictions were read out from the distogram head using a pairwise-distance comparison metric. Model behaviour was related to training-set overlap by searching for homologous proteins by sequence or structure among structures released before each model's training cutoff and checking whether they bound a structurally similar partner, and to alignment statistics via inter-chain mutual information, Jensen-Shannon conservation and interface hydrophobicity.

The shape of the work

Structural · the record, drawn

PREPARATIONREPRESENTATIONINFERENCEVALIDATIONINTERPRETATIONINFERENCEINTERPRETATION1234567AIAICuratenon-redundantprotein-peptide …Constructsequencealignments and a…Predict complexstructures withfive modelsScore predictionsagainstexperimental str…Search trainingdata forbinding-site mat…Re-run modelsunder input andattention ablati…Analyse whatdrives predictionaccuracy↤ physical experiment
AI stepNo AI↤ what the AI stood in for
1Preparation
no AI

Curate non-redundant protein-peptide test set

Cleaning, filtering, normalising or labelling data already obtained.

we filtered structures from the PDB by peptide length, presence of cofactors, and crystal contacts near the peptide binding sitewhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
2Representation
no AI

Construct sequence alignments and alternative inputs

Encoding data into features, descriptors, embeddings or graphs.

we constructed deeper paired MSAs for cases where the peptide could be mapped to a canonical UniProt entrywhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
3Inference
AI

Predict complex structures with five models

Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score. The AI stood in for physical experiment.

We made predictions using unpaired MSAs and no templates, took the top‐ranked structure out of five predictionswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
4Validation
no AI

Score predictions against experimental structures

Testing outputs against ground truth.

calculated DockQ values between predicted and experimental structureswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
5Interpretation
no AI

Search training data for binding-site matches

Extracting understanding from model behaviour.

we searched for homologous proteins (by sequence or structure) in the training setwhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
6Inference
AI

Re-run models under input and attention ablations

Running a trained model over new data to predict, classify or score.

We compared prediction performance using the paired MSAs to predictions made using MSAs containing the same sequences but with protein‐peptide pairings randomizedwhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper
7Interpretation
no AI

Analyse what drives prediction accuracy

Extracting understanding from model behaviour.

We calculated inter‐chain mutual information (MI) for the original and shuffled alignmentswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
in the paper

What the record says

Technical · every part carries its own basis

+ in the paper~ our reading− not reported

How to read the quotations. A quotation shows where the paper describes something. It does not quote every value beside it: one passage locates a part of the work, and values without their own quotation are our reading of that passage.

~Role of AI
AI produced the resultour reading

The study's findings are entirely about the behaviour of structure-prediction models; every reported result is derived from model predictions the authors ran

~What the AI was for
~Model families
~How it was taught
Supervisedour reading
~Models named
AlphaFold2 · Off the shelfAlphaFold2-Multimer · Off the shelfAlphaFold3 · Off the shelfBoltz-1 · Off the shelfChai-1 · Off the shelfour reading
+How results were checked
Held-out509 testedin the paper
Applying filters and clustering resulted in a non‐redundant test set of 509 protein‐peptide complexeswhere the paper describes this · verbatim
+Code · weights · data
code not reportedweights not reporteddata availablein the paper
The data that support the findings of this study are openly availablewhere the paper describes this · verbatim
+Compute
MIT Office of Research Computing and Data, MIT SuperCloud and Lincoln Laboratory Supercomputing Center resources acknowledged; no hardware counts or run times givenin the paper

What this paper did not report

Technical · absence is published deliberately

Reported as not stated — 8 items
  • CodeWhether the code is available is not stated.
  • Trained model weightsWhether the trained model is available is not stated.
  • Version of AlphaFold2Which version of the model was used is not stated.
  • Version of AlphaFold2-MultimerWhich version of the model was used is not stated.
  • Version of AlphaFold3Which version of the model was used is not stated.
  • Version of Boltz-1Which version of the model was used is not stated.
  • Version of Chai-1Which version of the model was used is not stated.
  • What step 6 replacedThe paper gives no basis for what the AI stood in for.

About this article

Record aix-00164, version 2, checked by a person on 2026-10-09. The record describes the paper; it does not assess whether the paper's findings are right. The paper is published under CC-BY; quotations are at most 25 words. How we work · Report an error