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.

Many dissimilar NusG protein domains switch between α-helix and β-sheet folds

Many dissimilar protein domains switch between α-helix and β-sheet folds

Even With Nonnative Interactions, The Updated Folding Transition States Of The Homologs Proteins G & L Are Extensive And Similar

Distinguishing features of fold‐switching proteins

The Folding Transition State of Protein L is Extensive with Nonnative Interactions (and Not Small and Polarized)

Inaccurate secondary structure predictions often indicate protein fold switching

An α helix to β barrel domain switch transforms the transcription factor RfaH into a translation factor

Evolution of fold switching in a metamorphic protein

Global Fold Switching of the RafH Protein: Diverse Structures with a Conserved Pathway

The conformational landscape of fold-switcher KaiB is tuned to the circadian rhythm timescale

Metamorphic protein folding as evolutionary adaptation

Single-molecule chemo-mechanical unfolding reveals multiple transition state barriers in a small single-domain protein

Folds from fold: Exploring topological isoforms of a single-domain protein

Folding Behavior of Ribosomal Protein S6 Studied by Modifiedgo¯-Like Model

Impact of N-Terminal Domain Conformation and Domain Interactions on RfaH Fold Switching

Structural distinctions between NAD+ riboswitch domains 1 and 2 determine differential folding and ligand binding

Transition states for folding of circular-permuted proteins.

Cooperative "folding transition" in the sequence space facilitates function-driven evolution of protein families

AlphaFold2 fails to predict protein fold switching

NusG-Spt5 Transcription Factors: Universal, Dynamic Modulators of Gene Expression

Simulating Protein Fold Switching by Replica-Exchange-with-Tunneling.