AlphaFold-Multimer accurately captures interactions and dynamics of intrinsically disordered protein regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Interactions mediated by intrinsically disordered protein regions (IDRs) pose formidable challenges in structural characterization. IDRs are highly versatile, capable of adopting diverse structures and engagement modes. Motivated by recent strides in protein structure prediction, we embarked on exploring the extent to which AlphaFold-Multimer can faithfully reproduce the intricacies of interactions involving IDRs. To this end, we gathered multiple datasets covering the versatile spectrum of IDR binding modes and used them to probe AlphaFold-Multimer's prediction of IDR interactions and their dynamics. Our analyses revealed that AlphaFold-Multimer is not only capable of predicting various types of bound IDR structures with high success rate, but that distinguishing true interactions from decoys, and unreliable predictions from accurate ones is achievable by appropriate use of AlphaFold-Multimer's intrinsic scores. We found that the quality of predictions drops for more heterogeneous, fuzzy interaction types, most likely due to lower interface hydrophobicity and higher coil content. Notably though, certain AlphaFold-Multimer scores, such as the Predicted Aligned Error and residue-ipTM, are highly correlated with structural heterogeneity of the bound IDR, enabling clear distinctions between predictions of fuzzy and more homogeneous binding modes. Finally, our benchmarking revealed that predictions of IDR interactions can also be successful when using full-length proteins, but not as accurate as with cognate IDRs. To facilitate identification of the cognate IDR of a given partner, we established "minD," which pinpoints potential interaction sites in a full-length protein. Our study demonstrates that AlphaFold-Multimer can correctly identify interacting IDRs and predict their mode of engagement with a given partner.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".