ArticleComputational and structural biotechnology journal2025
Bridging prediction and reality: Comprehensive analysis of experimental and AlphaFold 2 full-length nuclear receptor structures.
Article in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reproducibility, validation, and failure modes across classical and AI-driven molecular docking.Journal of computer-aided molecular design · 2026Review
- Improving AlphaFold2 Performance in Virtual Screens Targeting GPCRs by Enhancing Binding-Site Conformational Sampling.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026Article
- AI and Machine Learning for Proteomics-Driven Drug Discovery: Methods, Tools, and Best Practices.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Protein Structural Phylogenetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AlphaFold 2 has revolutionized protein structure prediction, yet systematic evaluations of its performance against experimental structures for specific protein families remain limited. Here we present the first comprehensive analysis comparing AlphaFold 2-predicted and experimental nuclear receptor structures, examining root-mean-square deviations, secondary structure elements, domain organization, and ligand-binding pocket geometry. While AlphaFold2 achieves high accuracy in predicting stable conformations with proper stereochemistry, it shows limitations in capturing the full spectrum of biologically relevant states, particularly in flexible regions and ligand-binding pockets. Statistical analysis reveals significant domain-specific variations, with ligand-binding domains showing higher structural variability (CV = 29.3%) compared to DNA-binding domains (CV = 17.7%). Notably, Alphafold 2 systematically underestimates ligand-binding pocket volumes and captures only single conformational states in homodimeric receptors where experimental structures show functionally important asymmetry. These findings provide critical insights for structure-based drug design targeting nuclear receptors and establish a framework for evaluating Alphafold 2 predictions across other protein families.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.