Abstract:AlphaFold2 has revolutionized protein structure prediction by leveraging sequence information to rapidly model protein folds with atomic‐level accuracy. Nevertheless, previous work has shown that these predictions tend to be inaccurate for structurally heterogeneous proteins. To systematically assess factors that contribute to this inaccuracy, we tested AlphaFold2's performance on 98‐fold‐switching proteins, which assume at least two distinct‐yet‐stable secondary and tertiary structures. Topological similarities were quantified between five predicted and two experimentally determined structures of each fold‐switching protein. Overall, 94% of AlphaFold2 predictions captured one experimentally determined conformation but not the other. Despite these biased results, AlphaFold2's estimated confidences were moderate‐to‐high for 74% of fold‐switching residues, a result that contrasts with overall low confidences for intrinsically disordered proteins, which are also structurally heterogeneous. To investigate factors contributing to this disparity, we quantified sequence variation within the multiple sequence alignments used to generate AlphaFold2's predictions of fold‐switching and intrinsically disordered proteins. Unlike intrinsically disordered regions, whose sequence alignments show low conservation, fold‐switching regions had conservation rates statistically similar to canonical single‐fold proteins. Furthermore, intrinsically disordered regions had systematically lower prediction confidences than either fold‐switching or single‐fold proteins, regardless of sequence conservation. AlphaFold2's high prediction confidences for fold switchers indicate that it uses sophisticated pattern recognition to search for one most probable conformer rather than protein biophysics to model a protein's structural ensemble. Thus, it is not surprising that its predictions often fail for proteins whose properties are not fully apparent from solved protein structures. Our results emphasize the need to look at protein structure as an ensemble and suggest that systematic examination of fold‐switching sequences may reveal propensities for multiple stable secondary and tertiary structures.

AlphaFold2: A Role for Disordered Protein/Region Prediction?

Systematic identification of conditionally folded intrinsically disordered regions by AlphaFold2

AlphaFold and Implications for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

Assessing structure and disorder prediction tools for de novo emerged proteins in the age of machine learning

Navigating the Unstructured by Evaluating AlphaFold's Efficacy in Predicting Missing Residues and Structural Disorder in Proteins

AlphaFold2 fails to predict protein fold switching

Intrinsic Protein Disorder and Conditional Folding in AlphaFoldDB

Random, de novo, and conserved proteins: How structure and disorder predictors perform differently

AlphaFold predictions on whole genomes at a glance

AlphaFold2 knows some protein folding principles

Revealing missing protein-ligand interactions using AlphaFold predictions

The power and pitfalls of AlphaFold2 for structure prediction beyond rigid globular proteins

AlphaFold-Metainference: Prediction of Structural Ensembles of Disordered Proteins

Predicting Protein Flexibility with AlphaFold

AlphaFold 2: Why It Works and Its Implications for Understanding the Relationships of Protein Sequence, Structure, and Function

Benchmarking the Accuracy of AlphaFold 2 in Loop Structure Prediction

A Sequence-based Approach for Predicting Protein Disordered Regions

Inherent Relationships among Different Biophysical Prediction Methods for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins

Dissecting AlphaFolds Capabilities with Limited Sequence Information

Assessing Structures and Conformational Ensembles of Apo and Holo Protein States Using Randomized Alanine Sequence Scanning Combined with Shallow Subsampling in AlphaFold2 : Insights and Lessons from Predictions of Functional Allosteric Conformations

Prediction of peptide structural conformations with AlphaFold2