Enhanced antibody-antigen structure prediction from molecular docking using AlphaFold2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Predicting the structure of antibody-antigen complexes has tremendous value in biomedical research but unfortunately suffers from a poor performance in real-life applications. AlphaFold2 (AF2) has provided renewed hope for improvements in the field of protein-protein docking but has shown limited success for the medically relevant class of antibody-antigen complexes due to the lack of co-evolutionary constraints. Some research groups have demonstrated the usefulness of the AF2 confidence metrics for assessing the plausibility of protein folding models. In this study, we used physics-based protein docking methods for building decoy sets consisting of low-energy docking solutions that were either geometrically close to the native structure (positives) or not (negatives). The docking models were then fed into AF2 to assess their confidence with a novel composite score based on the pLDDT and pTMscore metrics. We show benefits of the AF2 composite score for rescoring docking poses in two scenarios: (1) a more trivial experiment based on the bound conformations of the antibody and antigen backbone structures, and (2) a more realistic test employing the unbound backbone conformations of the binding partners. Docking success rates improved after AF2 rescoring with particular emphasis on early enrichment of positives at the very top of the re-ranked list of decoys. The AF2 rescoring markedly improved classification of positives and negatives in most systems. Docking models of at least medium quality present in the decoy set, but not necessarily highly ranked by docking methods, benefitted most from AF2 rescoring by experiencing large advances towards the top of the reranked list of models. These improvements, obtained without any calibration or novel methodologies, led to a notable level of performance in antibody-antigen unbound docking that was never achieved previously.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".