Protocol

Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40')

Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons

The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion

The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27

The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'

Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38

Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals

Dimer predictions were scored with DockQ and assigned to high, medium or acceptable quality or incorrect prediction (high DockQ >= 0.80, medium 0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80, acceptable 0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49, incorrect DockQ < 0.23). Ligands were removed from the experimental files before scoring. This protocol counts, for each class, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40.

3 evaluations · 12 results

Overview

An explanatory profile has not yet been reviewed for this record.

Consult the linked sources for architecture or protocol details. Missing evidence is not evidence of a missing capability.

3 recorded evaluations, 12 metric rows. A comparison chart has not yet been validated for these results. The table retains the individual findings and their sources.

View coverage and remaining gaps across all benchmarks

Results

Results are available, but no reviewed comparison panel is linked in this release.

All evaluations

3 evaluations · 12 results. Different protocols are not a single leaderboard.

Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') · Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)

In source order. Decimals are rounded for display; each value links to the printed value and its source.

Tested configuration	Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)	Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40)
AlphaFold2 (AlphaFold2 v2.2.3 installed locally; five models per sequence)Evaluation	45	173	85	130
AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)Evaluation	67	243	158	202
ESMFold (ESMFold installed locally from its GitHub repository)Evaluation	80	60	286	139

All 12 result rows with coverage, uncertainty and sources

Filter evaluations

Tested model or methodProtocolDatasetEvaluation setupMetricEvidence origin

Applied filters: All linked evaluations

Exact evaluated configurations and original reported results
Tested configuration	Protocol and dataset	Finding	Evidence and details
Configuration: AlphaFold2 (AlphaFold2 v2.2.3 installed locally; five models per sequence)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	45 Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold2 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold2' / 'Acceptable quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold2 (AlphaFold2 v2.2.3 installed locally; five models per sequence)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	173 Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold2 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold2' / 'High quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold2 (AlphaFold2 v2.2.3 installed locally; five models per sequence)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	85 Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold2 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold2' / 'Incorrect prediction', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold2 (AlphaFold2 v2.2.3 installed locally; five models per sequence)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	130 Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold2 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold2' / 'Medium quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	67 Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Acceptable quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	243 Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'High quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	158 Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Incorrect prediction', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: AlphaFold3 (AlphaFold3 accessed as a web service)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	202 Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source AlphaFold3 dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'AlphaFold3' / 'Medium quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: ESMFold (ESMFold installed locally from its GitHub repository)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	80 Count (Acceptable quality (0.23 <= DockQ < 0.49); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source ESMFold dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'ESMFold' / 'Acceptable quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: ESMFold (ESMFold installed locally from its GitHub repository)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	60 Count (High quality (DockQ >= 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source ESMFold dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'ESMFold' / 'High quality', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: ESMFold (ESMFold installed locally from its GitHub repository)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	286 Count (Incorrect prediction (DockQ < 0.23); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source ESMFold dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'ESMFold' / 'Incorrect prediction', column 'TQ 1–40'
Configuration: ESMFold (ESMFold installed locally from its GitHub repository)	Protocol: Predictive-class counts for dimeric predictions, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40') Dataset: 994 non-redundant dimeric PDB structures (2022-2024)	139 Count (Medium quality (0.49 <= DockQ < 0.80); structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40) count · unknown Uncertainty: Not reported by the source Coverage: Not reported scored / Not reported eligible	Independent external evaluation · Source checked Evidence concern: excluded from comparisons The ESMFold rows give 244 EM and 107 NMR monomers, while the AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 rows over the same 1666 targets give 161 and 190, and the text gives 160 and 190. The Discussion says ESMFold mispredicted 139 of 190 NMR monomers, against 56 incorrect and 9 special cases in the table. The EM and NMR cells of the ESMFold incorrect row appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, ESMFold rows, columns 'EM' and 'NMR'; Results paragraph 17; Discussion The text says all 11 AlphaFold2 and all 11 AlphaFold3 special cases are NMR structures; the table gives 1 XRD and 10 NMR for AlphaFold2, and 2 XRD, 1 EM and 8 NMR for AlphaFold3.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 1, 'Special cases' rows, columns 'XRD', 'EM', 'NMR'; Results paragraphs 24 and 27 The row prints EM 3 and NMR 37, so AlphaFold3 totals 184 EM and 49 NMR against 218 and 15 for the other tools over the same 994 targets (text: 219 and 15). The two cells appear transposed.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, AlphaFold3 'Acceptable quality' row, columns 'EM' and 'NMR' Template quality is a property of the target, yet the column totals differ by tool (TQ 0: 557, 319 and 391). For AlphaFold3 the text gives 414, 326 and 5 accurate and 153, 88 and 8 incorrect dimers by TQ band, against 228, 512 and 4, and 91, 158 and 0, in the table.Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, columns 'TQ 0', 'TQ 1–40', 'TQ > 40'; Results paragraph 38 Several rows do not sum to the 'No.' column: Table 1 AlphaFold2 and AlphaFold3 accurate (method columns 1068 and 1075), ESMFold domain movement (429); Table 2 AlphaFold2 incorrect (method 230), AlphaFold3 medium (TQ 305), ESMFold acceptable (TQ 122) and incorrect (method and TQ 584).Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Tables 1 and 2, row totals Methods, coverage and source ESMFold dimeric predictive-class counts, structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40 (Table 2) lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40 Aggregation: Not reported Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Table 2, row 'ESMFold' / 'Medium quality', column 'TQ 1–40'

Source checking is not independent reproduction. Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6.

Methods and evaluation design

Procedure, tasks and evaluated configurations

Recorded evaluations

Each evaluation records what was tested and under which conditions.

Baseline coverage

Reference methods help show what a model adds beyond simple controls. We track a null control and a conventional method for each protocol.

0 of 2 active baseline roles have published Rewire measurements in this release. Measurements on a selected protocol do not establish coverage of an entire suite.

No execution recipe linked to this protocol. Recipe availability does not establish a completed evaluation.

External evaluations: 3

Literature evidence is not a Rewire measurement. Executed but unpublished runs and private review status are not included.

Null control

Proposed control: requires review

Protocol-specific valid geometric or structural control

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Conventional reference

Proposed control: requires review

Upstream conventional structural reference with matched templates and cutoffs

Protocol-specific applicability, permitted inputs, access, split, evaluator and execution requirements need review before implementation or execution.

This is a suggested selection rule, not a validated method or a measured score.

Protocol coverage CSV (gzip) · Model evaluation matrix (gzip) · Source table (gzip) · Release and checksums (gzip)

Coverage is derived from release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6. Source citations describe the original records; they do not validate an unreviewed baseline proposal. No results have been generated by this audit.

Run instructions

No runnable recipe has been reviewed for this protocol. Dataset access, model requirements, licences and compute requirements must be checked against its sources before execution.

Strengths, limitations and unresolved questions

Evidence

Source checking verifies the cited claim or transcription. It does not establish independent reproduction.

Evidence table

Inspect claims, sources and review details

Trace each statement to its source and review. A context-only reference supports the record generally; it does not verify an individual field. Source checking does not reproduce an experiment.

One row per statement and cited source. Multiple citations are not independent evaluations. Shared locators are labelled explicitly.

0 evidence rows matching the loaded filters

Claims, original sources and review scope · Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6
Property and statement	Original source and location	Review and provenance

No evidence rows match these filters. Choose another scope or clear the search.

How to read the evidence

Sources and history

Release 2026-10-22-1b7cf027e4f6 · Record review: source checked

1 source record and release history

Comparative evaluation of the prediction accuracy of AlphaFold and ESMFold for monomeric and dimeric proteins · Original source · Version of record, NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics 2026 (PMC12809598 JATS full text)

Download this release (gzip)

Technical metadata and extraction receipts

Stable ID: lit-structure-20261011-afesmfold-protocol-2-tq-1-40

areas: protein-structure; proteins-complexes
contexts: research
protocol: Dimer predictions were scored with DockQ and assigned to high, medium or acceptable quality or incorrect prediction. Ligands were removed from the experimental files before scoring.
metric: count
metric direction: unknown
unit: count
unit detail: predicted structures
metric qualifier: structures in the class with template quality between 1 and 40
version: As published 2026
source locator: Table 2, column 'TQ 1–40'; Materials and methods (classification thresholds)
limitations: Counts per class, not a single accuracy score.; Template quality is defined in the text as sequence identity multiplied by query coverage.

Related records

Suggest a correction