Blind assessment of monomeric AlphaFold2 protein structure models with experimental NMR data

• Published in: Journal of magnetic resonance (1997) 2023-07, Vol.352, p.107481-107481, Article 107481
• Main Authors: Li, Ethan H., Spaman, Laura E., Tejero, Roberto, Janet Huang, Yuanpeng, Ramelot, Theresa A., Fraga, Keith J., Prestegard, James H., Kennedy, Michael A., Montelione, Gaetano T.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: AlphaFold2; Artificial intelligence; Cryoelectron Microscopy; Deep learning; Furylfuramide; Model validation; NMR data; Nuclear Magnetic Resonance, Biomolecular - methods; Protein Conformation; Protein NMR; Proteins - chemistry
• ISSN: 1090-7807; 1096-0856; 1096-0856
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jmr.2023.107481

[Display omitted] •AF2 models assessed against NMR data for 9 monomeric proteins not used in training.•AF2 models fit NMR data almost as well as the experimentally-determined structures.•RPF-DP, PSVS, and PDBStat software provide structure quality and RDC assessment. Recent advances in molecular modeling of protein structures are changing the field of structural biology. AlphaFold-2 (AF2), an AI system developed by DeepMind, Inc., utilizes attention-based deep learning to predict models of protein structures with high accuracy relative to structures determined by X-ray crystallography and cryo-electron microscopy (cryoEM). Comparing AF2 models to structures determined using solution NMR data, both high similarities and distinct differences have been observed. Since AF2 was trained on X-ray crystal and cryoEM structures, we assessed how accurately AF2 can model small, monomeric, solution protein NMR structures which (i) were not used in the AF2 training data set, and (ii) did not have homologous structures in the Protein Data Bank at the time of AF2 training. We identified nine open-source protein NMR data sets for such “blind” targets, including chemical shift, raw NMR FID data, NOESY peak lists, and (for 1 case) 15N-1H residual dipolar coupling data. For these nine small (70–108 residues) monomeric proteins, we generated AF2 prediction models and assessed how well these models fit to these experimental NMR data, using several well-established NMR structure validation tools. In most of these cases, the AF2 models fit the NMR data nearly as well, or sometimes better than, the corresponding NMR structure models previously deposited in the Protein Data Bank. These results provide benchmark NMR data for assessing new NMR data analysis and protein structure prediction methods. They also document the potential for using AF2 as a guiding tool in protein NMR data analysis, and more generally for hypothesis generation in structural biology research.