← On Whose Shoulders中文

From Anfinsen to AlphaFold:
48 years of protein structure prediction

In July 2021 DeepMind published the AlphaFold 2 paper in Nature, predicting the three-dimensional structure of proteins from their amino-acid sequence with near-experimental accuracy. Half of the 2024 Nobel Prize in Chemistry went to Demis Hassabis and John Jumper for protein structure prediction, the other half to David Baker for computational protein design.

That step rests on half a century of human work: Anfinsen showed that sequence determines structure; X-ray crystallography, NMR and cryo-EM solved structure after structure, and the Protein Data Bank opened them to the world; the CASP experiment drove prediction methods for over two decades; coevolution analysis read residue contacts out of sequences. The paper lists 84 references. We traced the people behind every one.

Anfinsen1973→Altschuh · Klug1987→Qian · Sejnowski1988→Šali · Blundell1993→CASP · Moult1995→Weigt et al.2009→Marks et al.2011→AlphaFold 12020→trRosetta · Baker2020→AlphaFold 22021
1AI paper (Nature 2021)
84reference entries
325scientists cited
6Nobel laureates in Chemistry
48years spanned (1973–2021)
Tracing back

The AI result sits at the top; below it are the human works it cites, by year, back to 1973. Gold tags mark Nobel laureates in Chemistry; open “How it is cited” for the sentences in the paper.

AI · DeepMindAlphaFold 2: highly accurate protein structure prediction2021
2020s
2021
Robin Pearce, Yang Zhang
Reference[14]
How it is cited (3)
Despite recent progress existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.
The prediction of protein structures has had a long and varied development, which is extensively covered in a number of reviews.
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
2021
R. Rao et al.
MSA transformer
Reference[38]
How it is cited (1)
The BERT objective is trained jointly with the normal PDB structure loss on the same training examples and is not pre-trained, in contrast to recent independent work.
2021
K. Tunyasuvunakool et al.
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Reference[39]
How it is cited (3)
In the companion paper additional quantification of the reliability of pLDDT as a confidence measure is provided. d, Correlation between pTM and full chain TM-score.
The other substantial limitation that we have observed is that AlphaFold is much weaker for proteins that have few intra-chain or homotypic contacts compared to the number of heterotypic contacts (further details are provided in a companion paper).
This opens up the exciting possibility of predicting structures at the proteome-scale and beyond—in a companion paper we demonstrate the application of AlphaFold to the entire human proteome.
2021
Yang Li, Chengxin Zhang, Eric W. Bell, Wei Zheng, Xiaogen Zhou, Dong-Jun Yu, Yang Zhang
Reference[45]
How it is cited (1)
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
2021
Jinbo Xu, Matthew McPartlon, Jin Li
Reference[51]
How it is cited (1)
A few recent studies have been developed to predict the 3D coordinates directly but the accuracy of these approaches does not match traditional, hand-crafted structure prediction pipelines.
2021
Alexander Rives, Joshua Meier, Tom Sercu, Siddharth Goyal, Zeming Lin, Jason Liu +5
Reference[56]
How it is cited (1)
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
2021
Joana Pereira, Adam J. Simpkin, Marcus D. Hartmann, Daniel J. Rigden, Ronan M. Keegan, Andrei N. Lupas
Reference[57]
How it is cited (1)
AlphaFold has already demonstrated its utility to the experimental community, both for molecular replacement and for interpreting cryogenic electron microscopy maps.
2021
M. Gupta et al.
CryoEM and AI reveal a structure of SARS-CoV-2 Nsp2, a multifunctional protein involved in key host processes
Reference[58]
How it is cited (1)
AlphaFold has already demonstrated its utility to the experimental community, both for molecular replacement and for interpreting cryogenic electron microscopy maps.
2021
Arina V. Drobysheva, Sofia A. Panafidina, Matvei V. Kolesnik, Evgeny I. Klimuk, Leonid Minakhin, Maria V. Yakunina +9
Reference[79]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2021
Thomas G. Flower, Cosmo Z. Buffalo, Richard M. Hooy, Marc Allaire, Xuefeng Ren, James H. Hurley
Reference[84]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2020
Michael C. Thompson, Todd O. Yeates, Jose A. Rodriguez
Reference[1]
How it is cited (1)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
2020
Alex L Mitchell, Alexandre Almeida, Martin Beracochea, Miguel Boland, Josephine Burgin, Guy Cochrane +11
Reference[6]
How it is cited (2)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
For MSA lookup at both training and prediction time, we used Uniref90 v.2020_01, BFD, Uniclust30 v.2018_08 and MGnify v.2018_12.
2020
Andrew W. Senior, Richard Evans, John JumperNobel Chemistry 2024, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Demis HassabisNobel Chemistry 2024 +12
Reference[10]
How it is cited (3)
Despite recent progress existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.
The neural network AlphaFold that we developed was entered into the CASP14 assessment (May–July 2020; entered under the team name ‘AlphaFold2’ and a completely different model from our CASP13 AlphaFold system).
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
2020
J. Moult, K. Fidelis, A. Kryshtafovych, T. Schwede, M. Topf
Critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction, fourteenth round
Reference[15]
How it is cited (1)
We validated an entirely redesigned version of our neural network-based model, AlphaFold, in the challenging 14th Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP14) demonstrating accuracy competitive with experimental structures in a majority of cases and greatly outperforming other methods.
2020
Emiliano Brini, Carlos Simmerling, Ken Dill
Reference[16]
How it is cited (1)
The physical interaction programme heavily integrates our understanding of molecular driving forces into either thermodynamic or kinetic simulation of protein physics or statistical approximations thereof.
2020
Q. Xie, M.-T. Luong, E. Hovy, Q. V. Le
Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification
Reference[35]
How it is cited (1)
The AlphaFold architecture is able to train to high accuracy using only supervised learning on PDB data, but we are able to enhance accuracy (Fig. 4a) using an approach similar to noisy student self-distillation.
2020
Jianyi Yang, Ivan Anishchenko, Hahnbeom Park, Zhenling Peng, Sergey Ovchinnikov, David BakerNobel Chemistry 2024
Reference[44]
How it is cited (1)
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
2020
The UniProt Consortium
Reference[62]
How it is cited (1)
First, 2,423,213,294 protein sequences were collected from UniProt (Swiss-Prot&TrEMBL, 2017-11) a soil reference protein catalogue and the marine eukaryotic reference catalogue and clustered to 30% sequence identity, while enforcing a 90% alignment coverage of the shorter sequences using MMseqs2/Linclust.
2020
Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau +20
Reference[72]
How it is cited (1)
For neural network construction, running and other analyses, we used TensorFlow Sonnet NumPy Python and Colab.
2020
Tianqi Wu, Jie Hou, Badri Adhikari, Jianlin Cheng
Reference[76]
How it is cited (1)
Per-residue Neff values were obtained by counting the number of non-gap residues in the MSA for this position and weighting the sequences using the Neff scheme with a threshold of 80% sequence identity measured on the region that is non-gap in either sequence.
2020
Wangshu Jiang, Wimal Ubhayasekera, Michael C. Breed, Allison N. Norsworthy, Nina Serr, Harry L. T. Mobley, Melanie M. Pearson, Stefan D. Knight
Reference[77]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2020
M. Dunne, P. Ernst, A. Sobieraj, A. Pluckthun, M. J. Loessner
The M23 peptidase domain of the Staphylococcal phage 2638A endolysin
Reference[78]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2020
Nicolas Flaugnatti, Chiara Rapisarda, Martial Rey, Solène G Beauvois, Viet Anh Nguyen, Stéphane Canaan +5
Reference[80]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2020
Ci Ji Lim, Alexandra T. Barbour, Arthur J. Zaug, Karen J. Goodrich, Allison E. McKay, Deborah S. Wuttke, Thomas R. Cech
Reference[82]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2020
Vincent Debruycker, Andrew Hutchin, Matthieu Masureel, Emel Ficici, Chloé Martens, Pierre Legrand +5
Reference[83]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2010s
2019
Martin Steinegger, Milot Mirdita, Johannes Söding
Reference[7]
How it is cited (2)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
First, 2,423,213,294 protein sequences were collected from UniProt (Swiss-Prot&TrEMBL, 2017-11) a soil reference protein catalogue and the marine eukaryotic reference catalogue and clustered to 30% sequence identity, while enforcing a 90% alignment coverage of the shorter sequences using MMseqs2/Linclust.
2019
Wei Zheng, Yang Li, Chengxin Zhang, Robin Pearce, S. M. Mortuza, Yang Zhang
Reference[12]
How it is cited (1)
Despite recent progress existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.
2019
Luciano A. Abriata, Giorgio E. Tamò, Matteo Dal Peraro
Reference[13]
How it is cited (1)
Despite recent progress existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.
2019
Andriy Kryshtafovych, Torsten Schwede, Maya Topf, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult
Reference[26]
How it is cited (1)
The CASP assessment is carried out biennially using recently solved structures that have not been deposited in the PDB or publicly disclosed so that it is a blind test for the participating methods, and has long served as the gold-standard assessment for the accuracy of structure prediction.
2019
Claudio Mirabello, Björn Wallner
Reference[30]
How it is cited (1)
In contrast to previous work this operation is applied within every block rather than once in the network, which enables the continuous communication from the evolving MSA representation to the pair representation.
2019
Z. Huang et al.
CCNet: criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation
Reference[31]
How it is cited (2)
In particular, we add an extra logit bias to axial attention to include the ‘missing edge’ of the triangle and we define a non-attention update operation ‘triangle multiplicative update’ that uses two edges to update the missing third edge (see Supplementary Methods 1.6.5 for details).
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
2019
J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, K. Toutanova
BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding
Reference[37]
How it is cited (2)
Additionally, we randomly mask out or mutate individual residues within the MSA and have a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-style objective to predict the masked elements of the MSA sequences.
Second, we use random masking on the input MSAs and require the network to reconstruct the masked regions from the output MSA representation using a BERT-like loss.
2019
Brian Kuhlman, Philip Bradley
Reference[40]
How it is cited (1)
The prediction of protein structures has had a long and varied development, which is extensively covered in a number of reviews.
2019
Mohammed AlQuraishi
Reference[47]
How it is cited (1)
A few recent studies have been developed to predict the 3D coordinates directly but the accuracy of these approaches does not match traditional, hand-crafted structure prediction pipelines.
2019
Andrew W. Senior, Richard Evans, John JumperNobel Chemistry 2024, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Demis HassabisNobel Chemistry 2024 +12
Reference[48]
How it is cited (1)
A few recent studies have been developed to predict the 3D coordinates directly but the accuracy of these approaches does not match traditional, hand-crafted structure prediction pipelines.
2019
J. Ingraham, A. J. Riesselman, C. Sander, D. S. Marks
Learning protein structure with a differentiable simulator
Reference[49]
How it is cited (1)
A few recent studies have been developed to predict the 3D coordinates directly but the accuracy of these approaches does not match traditional, hand-crafted structure prediction pipelines.
2019
J. Li
Universal transforming geometric network
Reference[50]
How it is cited (1)
A few recent studies have been developed to predict the 3D coordinates directly but the accuracy of these approaches does not match traditional, hand-crafted structure prediction pipelines.
2019
Ethan C. Alley, Grigory Khimulya, Surojit Biswas, Mohammed AlQuraishi, George M. Church
Reference[54]
How it is cited (1)
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
2019
Michael Heinzinger, Ahmed Elnaggar, Yu Wang, Christian Dallago, Dmitrii Nechaev, Florian Matthes, Burkhard Rost
Reference[55]
How it is cited (1)
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
2019
J. Ingraham, V. K. Garg, R. Barzilay, T. Jaakkola
Generative models for graph-based protein design
Reference[59]
How it is cited (1)
A related construction that uses classic geometric invariants to construct pairwise features in place of the learned 3D points has been applied to protein design.
2019
Martin Steinegger, Markus Meier, Milot Mirdita, Harald Vöhringer, Stephan J. Haunsberger, Johannes Söding
Reference[66]
How it is cited (2)
For finding template structures at prediction time, we used a copy of the PDB downloaded on 14 May 2020, and the PDB70 clustering database downloaded on 13 May 2020.
For MSA search on BFD + Uniclust30, and template search against PDB70, we used HHBlits and HHSearch from hh-suite v.3.0-beta.3 (version 14/07/2017).
2018
wwPDB Consortium
Reference[5]
How it is cited (3)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
This bioinformatics approach has benefited greatly from the steady growth of experimental protein structures deposited in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) the explosion of genomic sequencing and the rapid development of deep learning techniques to interpret these correlations.
Our models were trained on a copy of the PDB downloaded on 28 August 2019.
2018
Martin Steinegger, Johannes Söding
Reference[63]
How it is cited (2)
First, 2,423,213,294 protein sequences were collected from UniProt (Swiss-Prot&TrEMBL, 2017-11) a soil reference protein catalogue and the marine eukaryotic reference catalogue and clustered to 30% sequence identity, while enforcing a 90% alignment coverage of the shorter sequences using MMseqs2/Linclust.
Second, we added 166,510,624 representative protein sequences from Metaclust NR (2017-05; discarding all sequences shorter than 150 residues) by aligning them against the cluster representatives using MMseqs2.
2018
Mohammad ElGamacy, Murray Coles, Patrick Ernst, Hongbo Zhu, Marcus D. Hartmann, Andreas Plückthun, Andrei N. Lupas
Reference[81]
How it is cited (1)
We show experimental structures from the PDB with accession numbers 6Y4F 6YJ1 6VR4 6SK0 6FES 6W6W 6T1Z and 7JTL.
2017
Sheng Wang, Siqi Sun, Zhen Li, Renyu Zhang, Jinbo Xu
Reference[11]
How it is cited (2)
Despite recent progress existing methods fall far short of atomic accuracy, especially when no homologous structure is available.
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
2017
Milot Mirdita, Lars von den Driesch, Clovis Galiez, Maria J. Martin, Johannes Söding, Martin Steinegger
Reference[36]
How it is cited (4)
In this procedure, we use a trained network to predict the structure of around 350,000 diverse sequences from Uniclust30 and make a new dataset of predicted structures filtered to a high-confidence subset.
Third, for each of the clusters, we computed an MSA using FAMSA and computed the HMMs following the Uniclust HH-suite database protocol.
For MSA lookup at both training and prediction time, we used Uniref90 v.2020_01, BFD, Uniclust30 v.2018_08 and MGnify v.2018_12.
For sequence distillation, we used Uniclust30 v.2018_08 to construct a distillation structure dataset.
2017
A. Vaswani et al.
Attention is all you need
Reference[52]
How it is cited (1)
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
2017
Martin Steinegger, Johannes Söding
Reference[64]
How it is cited (1)
Second, we added 166,510,624 representative protein sequences from Metaclust NR (2017-05; discarding all sequences shorter than 150 residues) by aligning them against the cluster representatives using MMseqs2.
2017
Peter Eastman, Jason Swails, John D. Chodera, Robert T. McGibbon, Yutong Zhao, Kyle A. Beauchamp +7
Reference[69]
How it is cited (1)
For constrained relaxation of structures, we used OpenMM v.7.3.1 with the Amber99sb force field.
2016
J. Carreira, P. Agrawal, K. Fragkiadaki, J. Malik
Human pose estimation with iterative error feedback
Reference[29]
How it is cited (1)
The iterative refinement using the whole network (which we term ‘recycling’ and is related to approaches in computer vision) contributes markedly to accuracy with minor extra training time (see Supplementary Methods 1.8 for details).
2016
K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun
Deep residual learning for image recognition
Reference[46]
How it is cited (1)
These approaches effectively leverage the rapid improvement in computer vision systems by treating the problem of protein structure prediction as converting an ‘image’ of evolutionary couplings to an ‘image’ of the protein distance matrix and then integrating the distance predictions into a heuristic system that produces the final 3D coordinate prediction.
2016
Sebastian Deorowicz, Agnieszka Debudaj-Grabysz, Adam Gudyś
Reference[65]
How it is cited (1)
Third, for each of the clusters, we computed an MSA using FAMSA and computed the HMMs following the Uniclust HH-suite database protocol.
2015
Xiao-chen Bai, Greg McMullan, Sjors H.W Scheres
Reference[2]
How it is cited (1)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
2015
Baris E. Suzek, Yuqi Wang, Hongzhan Huang, Peter B. McGarvey, Cathy H. Wu, the UniProt Consortium
Reference[67]
How it is cited (1)
For MSA lookup at both training and prediction time, we used Uniref90 v.2020_01, BFD, Uniclust30 v.2018_08 and MGnify v.2018_12.
2015
Martín Abadi et al.
TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems
Reference[70]
How it is cited (1)
For neural network construction, running and other analyses, we used TensorFlow Sonnet NumPy Python and Colab.
2014
Mariusz Jaskolski, Zbigniew Dauter, Alexander Wlodawer
Reference[3]
How it is cited (1)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
2013
Valerio Mariani, Marco Biasini, Alessandro Barbato, Torsten Schwede
Reference[34]
How it is cited (2)
Empirically, this final relaxation does not improve the accuracy of the model as measured by the global distance test (GDT) or lDDT-Cα but does remove distracting stereochemical violations without the loss of accuracy.
The predicted structure is compared to the true structure from the PDB in terms of lDDT metric as this metric reports the domain accuracy without requiring a domain segmentation of chain structures.
2012
David T. Jones, Daniel W. A. Buchan, Domenico Cozzetto, Massimiliano Pontil
Reference[24]
How it is cited (2)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
These approaches effectively leverage the rapid improvement in computer vision systems by treating the problem of protein structure prediction as converting an ‘image’ of evolutionary couplings to an ‘image’ of the protein distance matrix and then integrating the distance predictions into a heuristic system that produces the final 3D coordinate prediction.
2012
Debora S Marks, Thomas A Hopf, Chris Sander
Reference[41]
How it is cited (1)
The prediction of protein structures has had a long and varied development, which is extensively covered in a number of reviews.
2012
Michael Remmert, Andreas Biegert, Andreas Hauser, Johannes Söding
Reference[61]
How it is cited (2)
Inputs to the network are the primary sequence, sequences from evolutionarily related proteins in the form of a MSA created by standard tools including jackhmmer and HHBlits and 3D atom coordinates of a small number of homologous structures (templates) where available.
For MSA search on BFD + Uniclust30, and template search against PDB70, we used HHBlits and HHSearch from hh-suite v.3.0-beta.3 (version 14/07/2017).
2011
Debora S. Marks, Lucy J. Colwell, Robert Sheridan, Thomas A. Hopf, Andrea Pagnani, Riccardo Zecchina, Chris Sander
Reference[23]
How it is cited (2)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
These approaches effectively leverage the rapid improvement in computer vision systems by treating the problem of protein structure prediction as converting an ‘image’ of evolutionary couplings to an ‘image’ of the protein distance matrix and then integrating the distance predictions into a heuristic system that produces the final 3D coordinate prediction.
2011
Sean R. Eddy
Reference[68]
How it is cited (1)
For MSA search on Uniref90 and clustered MGnify, we used jackhmmer from HMMER3.
2010
Ambrish Roy, Alper Kucukural, Yang Zhang
Reference[19]
How it is cited (1)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
2010
Zhuowen Tu, Xiang Bai
Reference[28]
How it is cited (1)
The iterative refinement using the whole network (which we term ‘recycling’ and is related to approaches in computer vision) contributes markedly to accuracy with minor extra training time (see Supplementary Methods 1.8 for details).
2010
L Steven Johnson, Sean R Eddy, Elon Portugaly
Reference[60]
How it is cited (1)
Inputs to the network are the primary sequence, sequences from evolutionarily related proteins in the form of a MSA created by standard tools including jackhmmer and HHBlits and 3D atom coordinates of a small number of homologous structures (templates) where available.
2000s
2009
Martin Weigt, Robert A. White, Hendrik Szurmant, James A. Hoch, Terence Hwa
Reference[22]
How it is cited (2)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
These approaches effectively leverage the rapid improvement in computer vision systems by treating the problem of protein structure prediction as converting an ‘image’ of evolutionary couplings to an ‘image’ of the protein distance matrix and then integrating the distance predictions into a heuristic system that produces the final 3D coordinate prediction.
2008
Ken A. Dill, S. Banu Ozkan, M. Scott Shell, Thomas R. Weikl
Reference[8]
How it is cited (1)
Predicting the three-dimensional structure that a protein will adopt based solely on its amino acid sequence—the structure prediction component of the ‘protein folding problem’ —has been an important open research problem for more than 50 years.
2006
Viktor Hornak, Robert Abel, Asim Okur, Bentley Strockbine, Adrian Roitberg, Carlos Simmerling
Reference[32]
How it is cited (2)
Exact enforcement of peptide bond geometry is only achieved in the post-prediction relaxation of the structure by gradient descent in the Amber force field.
For constrained relaxation of structures, we used OpenMM v.7.3.1 with the Amber99sb force field.
2004
Yang Zhang, Jeffrey Skolnick
Reference[27]
How it is cited (2)
We also find that the global superposition metric template modelling score (TM-score) can be accurately estimated (Fig. 2d).
Domain accuracies in CASP are reported as GDT and the TM-score is used as a full chain global superposition metric.
2003
A. Zemla
Reference[33]
How it is cited (2)
Empirically, this final relaxation does not improve the accuracy of the model as measured by the global distance test (GDT) or lDDT-Cα but does remove distracting stereochemical violations without the loss of accuracy.
Domain accuracies in CASP are reported as GDT and the TM-score is used as a full chain global superposition metric.
2001
Kurt WüthrichNobel Chemistry 2002
Reference[4]
How it is cited (1)
Through an enormous experimental effort the structures of around 100,000 unique proteins have been determined but this represents a small fraction of the billions of known protein sequences.
2001
Piero Fariselli, Osvaldo Olmea, Alfonso Valencia, Rita Casadio
Reference[43]
How it is cited (2)
The prediction of protein structures has had a long and varied development, which is extensively covered in a number of reviews.
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
1980–1999
1995
John Moult, Jan T. Pedersen, Richard Judson, Krzysztof Fidelis
Reference[25]
How it is cited (1)
The CASP assessment is carried out biennially using recently solved structures that have not been deposited in the PDB or publicly disclosed so that it is a blind test for the participating methods, and has long served as the gold-standard assessment for the accuracy of structure prediction.
1994
I.N. Shindyalov, N.A. Kolchanov, C. Sander
Reference[21]
How it is cited (1)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
1993
Andrej Šali, Tom L. Blundell
Reference[18]
How it is cited (1)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
1990
Manfred J. Sippl
Reference[17]
How it is cited (1)
The physical interaction programme heavily integrates our understanding of molecular driving forces into either thermodynamic or kinetic simulation of protein physics or statistical approximations thereof.
1988
Ning Qian, Terrence J. Sejnowski
Reference[42]
How it is cited (2)
The prediction of protein structures has had a long and varied development, which is extensively covered in a number of reviews.
Despite the long history of applying neural networks to structure prediction they have only recently come to improve structure prediction.
1987
D. Altschuh, A.M. Lesk, A.C. Bloomer, Aaron KlugNobel Chemistry 1982
Reference[20]
How it is cited (1)
The evolutionary programme has provided an alternative in recent years, in which the constraints on protein structure are derived from bioinformatics analysis of the evolutionary history of proteins, homology to solved structures and pairwise evolutionary correlations.
1970s: sequence determines structure
1973
Christian B. AnfinsenNobel Chemistry 1972
Reference[9]
How it is cited (1)
Predicting the three-dimensional structure that a protein will adopt based solely on its amino acid sequence—the structure prediction component of the ‘protein folding problem’ —has been an important open research problem for more than 50 years.
—
H. Wang et al.
Axial-deeplab: stand-alone axial-attention for panoptic segmentation
Reference[53]
How it is cited (1)
In parallel, the success of attention-based networks for language processing and, more recently, computer vision has inspired the exploration of attention-based methods for interpreting protein sequences.
—
M. Reynolds et al.
Open sourcing Sonnet – a new library for constructing neural networks
Reference[71]
How it is cited (1)
For neural network construction, running and other analyses, we used TensorFlow Sonnet NumPy Python and Colab.
—
G. Van Rossum, F. L. Drake
Python 3 Reference Manual (CreateSpace, 2009).
Reference[73]
How it is cited (1)
For neural network construction, running and other analyses, we used TensorFlow Sonnet NumPy Python and Colab.
—
Bisong, E
Reference[74]
How it is cited (1)
For neural network construction, running and other analyses, we used TensorFlow Sonnet NumPy Python and Colab.
—
TensorFlow
Reference[75]
How it is cited (1)
These timings are measured using our open-source code, and the open-source code is notably faster than the version we ran in CASP14 as we now use the XLA compiler.
Scientists cited

Ranked by reference entries by default: the paper listing one of their works counts once.

  1. Johannes Söding6
  2. Martin Steinegger5
  3. Yang Zhang5
  4. Chris Sander4
  5. Milot Mirdita3
  6. David T. Jones3
  7. Debora S. Marks3
  8. Torsten Schwede3
  9. John Moult3
  10. Krzysztof Fidelis3
  11. Alex Bridgland2
  12. Alexander W. R. Nelson2
  13. Andrew W. Senior2
  14. Augustin Žídek2
  15. Chongli Qin2
  16. David Silver2
  17. Demis HassabisNobel Chemistry 20242
  18. Hugo Penedones2
  19. James Kirkpatrick2
  20. John JumperNobel Chemistry 20242
  21. Karen Simonyan2
  22. Koray Kavukcuoglu2
  23. Laurent Sifre2
  24. Pushmeet Kohli2
  25. Richard Evans2
  26. Robin Pearce2
  27. Steve Crossan2
  28. Stig Petersen2
  29. Tim Green2
  30. Carlos Simmerling2
  31. Jinbo Xu2
  32. Thomas A. Hopf2
  33. Andreas Plückthun2
  34. Andrei N. Lupas2
  35. Andriy Kryshtafovych2
  36. Chengxin Zhang2
  37. J. Ingraham2
  38. Jin Li2
  39. Ken A. Dill2
  40. Marcus D. Hartmann2
  41. Maya Topf2
  42. Mohammed AlQuraishi2
  43. Patrick Ernst2
  44. Sean R. Eddy2
  45. The UniProt Consortium2
  46. Wei Zheng2
  47. Xiao-chen Bai2
  48. Yang Li2
  49. Yuqi Wang2
  50. Clovis Galiez1
  51. Lars von den Driesch1
  52. Maria J. Martin1
  53. K. Tunyasuvunakool1
  54. wwPDB Consortium1
  55. A. Zemla1
  56. Adrian Roitberg1
  57. Alessandro Barbato1
  58. Alex L Mitchell1
  59. Alex Shlemov1
  60. Alexandre Almeida1
  61. Alfonso Valencia1
  62. Alla Lapidus1
  63. Andrea Pagnani1
  64. Andreas Biegert1
  65. Andreas Hauser1
  66. Anton Korobeynikov1
  67. Asim Okur1
  68. Bentley Strockbine1
  69. Daniel W. A. Buchan1
  70. Domenico Cozzetto1
  71. Ekaterina Sakharova1
  72. Guy Cochrane1
  73. Harald Vöhringer1
  74. Hendrik Szurmant1
  75. J. Devlin1
  76. James A. Hoch1
  77. Jeffrey Skolnick1
  78. Josephine Burgin1
  79. K. Lee1
  80. K. Toutanova1
  81. Lorna J Richardson1
  82. Lucy J. Colwell1
  83. M.-W. Chang1
  84. Marco Biasini1
  85. Markus Meier1
  86. Martin Beracochea1
  87. Martin Weigt1
  88. Massimiliano Pontil1
  89. Maxim Scheremetjew1
  90. Michael R Crusoe1
  91. Michael Remmert1
  92. Miguel Boland1
  93. Ning Qian1
  94. Olga Kunyavskaya1
  95. Osvaldo Olmea1
  96. Piero Fariselli1
  97. Renyu Zhang1
  98. Riccardo Zecchina1
  99. Rita Casadio1
  100. Robert A. White1
  101. Robert Abel1
  102. Robert D Finn1
  103. Robert Sheridan1
  104. Sheng Wang1
  105. Simon C Potter1
  106. Siqi Sun1
  107. Stephan J. Haunsberger1
  108. Terence Hwa1
  109. Terrence J. Sejnowski1
  110. Valerio Mariani1
  111. Varsha Kale1
  112. Viktor Hornak1
  113. Z. Huang1
  114. Zhen Li1
  115. A. J. Riesselman1
  116. A. Sobieraj1
  117. A. Vaswani1
  118. A.C. Bloomer1
  119. A.M. Lesk1
  120. Aaron KlugNobel Chemistry 19821
  121. Adam Gudyś1
  122. Adam J. Simpkin1
  123. Agnieszka Debudaj-Grabysz1
  124. Ahmed Elnaggar1
  125. Alexander Rives1
  126. Alexander Wlodawer1
  127. Alexandra T. Barbour1
  128. Allan Haldane1
  129. Allison E. McKay1
  130. Allison N. Norsworthy1
  131. Alper Kucukural1
  132. Ambrish Roy1
  133. Andrej Šali1
  134. Andrew C. Simmonett1
  135. Andrew Hutchin1
  136. Arina V. Drobysheva1
  137. Arthur J. Zaug1
  138. Badri Adhikari1
  139. Baris E. Suzek1
  140. Bernard R. Brooks1
  141. Björn Wallner1
  142. Brian Kuhlman1
  143. Burkhard Rost1
  144. C. Lawrence Zitnick1
  145. Cathy H. Wu1
  146. Charles R. Harris1
  147. Chaya D. Stern1
  148. Chiara Rapisarda1
  149. Chloé Martens1
  150. Christian B. AnfinsenNobel Chemistry 19721
  151. Christian Dallago1
  152. Christoph Gohlke1
  153. Ci Ji Lim1
  154. Claudio Mirabello1
  155. Cosmo Z. Buffalo1
  156. Cédric Govaerts1
  157. D. Altschuh1
  158. Daniel J. Rigden1
  159. David BakerNobel Chemistry 20241
  160. David Cournapeau1
  161. Deborah S. Wuttke1
  162. Demi Guo1
  163. Dmitrii Nechaev1
  164. Dong-Jun Yu1
  165. E. Hovy1
  166. Elon Portugaly1
  167. Emel Ficici1
  168. Emelie Nilsson1
  169. Emiliano Brini1
  170. Eric Cascales1
  171. Eric Durand1
  172. Eric W. Bell1
  173. Eric Wieser1
  174. Ethan C. Alley1
  175. Eugene V. Koonin1
  176. Evgeny I. Klimuk1
  177. F. L. Drake1
  178. Florian Matthes1
  179. G. Van Rossum1
  180. George M. Church1
  181. Giorgio E. Tamò1
  182. Greg McMullan1
  183. Grigory Khimulya1
  184. H. Wang1
  185. Hahnbeom Park1
  186. Hameer Abbasi1
  187. Han Remaut1
  188. Harry L. T. Mobley1
  189. Hassane S. Mchaourab1
  190. Hongbo Zhu1
  191. Hongzhan Huang1
  192. I.N. Shindyalov1
  193. Ivan Anishchenko1
  194. J. Carreira1
  195. J. Malik1
  196. J. Sun1
  197. Jaime Fernández del Río1
  198. James H. Hurley1
  199. Jan T. Pedersen1
  200. Jason Liu1
  201. Jason Swails1
  202. Jerry Ma1
  203. Jianlin Cheng1
  204. Jianyi Yang1
  205. Jie Hou1
  206. Joana Pereira1
  207. John D. Chodera1
  208. Jose A. Rodriguez1
  209. Joshua Meier1
  210. José D. Faraldo-Gómez1
  211. Julia Chamot‐Rooke1
  212. Julian Taylor1
  213. K. Fragkiadaki1
  214. K. He1
  215. K. Jarrod Millman1
  216. Karen J. Goodrich1
  217. Karin Holmfeldt1
  218. Kevin Sheppard1
  219. Kira S. Makarova1
  220. Konstantin V. Severinov1
  221. Kurt WüthrichNobel Chemistry 20021
  222. Kyle A. Beauchamp1
  223. L Steven Johnson1
  224. Laure Journet1
  225. Lee-Ping Wang1
  226. Leonid Minakhin1
  227. Luciano A. Abriata1
  228. M. Dunne1
  229. M. Gupta1
  230. M. J. Loessner1
  231. M. Reynolds1
  232. M. Scott Shell1
  233. M.-T. Luong1
  234. Manfred J. Sippl1
  235. Marc Allaire1
  236. Maria L. Sokolova1
  237. Maria V. Yakunina1
  238. Mariusz Jaskolski1
  239. Mark Wiebe1
  240. Marten H. van Kerkwijk1
  241. Martial Rey1
  242. Martín Abadi1
  243. Matteo Dal Peraro1
  244. Matthew Brett1
  245. Matthew McPartlon1
  246. Matthew P. Harrigan1
  247. Matthieu Masureel1
  248. Matti Picus1
  249. Matvei V. Kolesnik1
  250. Melanie M. Pearson1
  251. Michael C. Breed1
  252. Michael C. Thompson1
  253. Michael Heinzinger1
  254. Mohammad ElGamacy1
  255. Murray Coles1
  256. Myle Ott1
  257. N.A. Kolchanov1
  258. Natalya Yutin1
  259. Nathaniel J. Smith1
  260. Nicolas Flaugnatti1
  261. Nina Serr1
  262. P. Agrawal1
  263. Pauli Virtanen1
  264. Pearu Peterson1
  265. Peter B. McGarvey1
  266. Peter Eastman1
  267. Petr G. Leiman1
  268. Philip Bradley1
  269. Pierre Gérard-Marchant1
  270. Pierre Legrand1
  271. Q. V. Le1
  272. Q. Xie1
  273. R. Barzilay1
  274. R. Rao1
  275. Rafal P. Wiewiora1
  276. Ralf Gommers1
  277. Richard A. Stein1
  278. Richard Judson1
  279. Richard M. Hooy1
  280. Rob Fergus1
  281. Robert Kern1
  282. Robert T. McGibbon1
  283. Ronan M. Keegan1
  284. Rémi Fronzes1
  285. S. Banu Ozkan1
  286. S. M. Mortuza1
  287. S. Ren1
  288. Sebastian Berg1
  289. Sebastian Deorowicz1
  290. Sergei Borukhov1
  291. Sergey Ovchinnikov1
  292. Siddharth Goyal1
  293. Sjors H.W Scheres1
  294. Sofia A. Panafidina1
  295. Solène G Beauvois1
  296. Stefan D. Knight1
  297. Stephan Hoyer1
  298. Stéfan J. van der Walt1
  299. Stéphane Canaan1
  300. Surojit Biswas1
  301. T. Jaakkola1
  302. Thomas G. Flower1
  303. Thomas R. Cech1
  304. Thomas R. Weikl1
  305. Tianqi Wu1
  306. Todd O. Yeates1
  307. Tom L. Blundell1
  308. Tom Sercu1
  309. Travis E. Oliphant1
  310. Tyler Reddy1
  311. V. K. Garg1
  312. Viet Anh Nguyen1
  313. Vijay S. Pande1
  314. Vincent Debruycker1
  315. Wangshu Jiang1
  316. Warren Weckesser1
  317. Wimal Ubhayasekera1
  318. X. Zhang1
  319. Xiaogen Zhou1
  320. Xuefeng Ren1
  321. Yutong Zhao1
  322. Zbigniew Dauter1
  323. Zeming Lin1
  324. Zhenling Peng1
  325. Zhuowen Tu1
Reference list

Original numbering; the number on the right is how often the entry is cited in the text and figure legends. Eight entries abbreviate their authors with “et al.” in the original and cannot be completed from a DOI; they show the first author only.

Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold

  1. 1×Michael C. Thompson, Todd O. Yeates, Jose A. Rodriguez, Advances in methods for atomic resolution macromolecular structure determination (2020)
  2. 1×Xiao-chen Bai, Greg McMullan, Sjors H.W Scheres, How cryo-EM is revolutionizing structural biology (2015)
  3. 1×Mariusz Jaskolski, Zbigniew Dauter, Alexander Wlodawer, A brief history of macromolecular crystallography, illustrated by a family tree and its Nobel fruits (2014)
  4. 1×Kurt Wüthrich, The way to NMR structures of proteins (2001)
  5. 3×wwPDB Consortium, Protein Data Bank: the single global archive for 3D macromolecular structure data (2018)
  6. 2×Alex L Mitchell, Alexandre Almeida, Martin Beracochea, Miguel Boland, Josephine Burgin, Guy Cochrane …, MGnify: the microbiome analysis resource in 2020 (2020)
  7. 2×Martin Steinegger, Milot Mirdita, Johannes Söding, Protein-level assembly increases protein sequence recovery from metagenomic samples manyfold (2019)
  8. 1×Ken A. Dill, S. Banu Ozkan, M. Scott Shell, Thomas R. Weikl, The protein folding problem (2008)
  9. 1×Christian B. Anfinsen, Principles that govern the folding of protein chains (1973)
  10. 3×Andrew W. Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green …, Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning (2020)
  11. 2×Sheng Wang, Siqi Sun, Zhen Li, Renyu Zhang, Jinbo Xu, Accurate de novo prediction of protein contact map by ultra-deep learning model (2017)
  12. 1×Wei Zheng, Yang Li, Chengxin Zhang, Robin Pearce, S. M. Mortuza, Yang Zhang, Deep-learning contact-map guided protein structure prediction in CASP13 (2019)
  13. 1×Luciano A. Abriata, Giorgio E. Tamò, Matteo Dal Peraro, A further leap of improvement in tertiary structure prediction in CASP13 prompts new routes for future assessments (2019)
  14. 3×Robin Pearce, Yang Zhang, Deep learning techniques have significantly impacted protein structure prediction and protein design (2021)
  15. 1×J. Moult, K. Fidelis, A. Kryshtafovych, T. Schwede, M. Topf, Critical assessment of techniques for protein structure prediction, fourteenth round (2020)
  16. 1×Emiliano Brini, Carlos Simmerling, Ken Dill, Protein storytelling through physics (2020)
  17. 1×Manfred J. Sippl, Calculation of conformational ensembles from potentials of mean force. An approach to the knowledge-based prediction of local structures in globular proteins (1990)
  18. 1×Andrej Šali, Tom L. Blundell, Comparative protein modelling by satisfaction of spatial restraints (1993)
  19. 1×Ambrish Roy, Alper Kucukural, Yang Zhang, I-TASSER: a unified platform for automated protein structure and function prediction (2010)
  20. 1×D. Altschuh, A.M. Lesk, A.C. Bloomer, Aaron Klug, Correlation of co-ordinated amino acid substitutions with function in viruses related to tobacco mosaic virus (1987)
  21. 1×I.N. Shindyalov, N.A. Kolchanov, C. Sander, Can three-dimensional contacts in protein structures be predicted by analysis of correlated mutations? (1994)
  22. 2×Martin Weigt, Robert A. White, Hendrik Szurmant, James A. Hoch, Terence Hwa, Identification of direct residue contacts in protein–protein interaction by message passing (2009)
  23. 2×Debora S. Marks, Lucy J. Colwell, Robert Sheridan, Thomas A. Hopf, Andrea Pagnani, Riccardo Zecchina …, Protein 3D structure computed from evolutionary sequence variation (2011)
  24. 2×David T. Jones, Daniel W. A. Buchan, Domenico Cozzetto, Massimiliano Pontil, PSICOV: precise structural contact prediction using sparse inverse covariance estimation on large multiple sequence alignments (2012)
  25. 1×John Moult, Jan T. Pedersen, Richard Judson, Krzysztof Fidelis, A large-scale experiment to assess protein structure prediction methods (1995)
  26. 1×Andriy Kryshtafovych, Torsten Schwede, Maya Topf, Krzysztof Fidelis, John Moult, Critical assessment of methods of protein structure prediction (CASP)-round XIII (2019)
  27. 2×Yang Zhang, Jeffrey Skolnick, Scoring function for automated assessment of protein structure template quality (2004)
  28. 1×Zhuowen Tu, Xiang Bai, Auto-context and its application to high-level vision tasks and 3D brain image segmentation (2010)
  29. 1×J. Carreira, P. Agrawal, K. Fragkiadaki, J. Malik, Human pose estimation with iterative error feedback (2016)
  30. 1×Claudio Mirabello, Björn Wallner, rawMSA: end-to-end deep learning using raw multiple sequence alignments (2019)
  31. 2×Z. Huang et al., CCNet: criss-cross attention for semantic segmentation (2019)
  32. 2×Viktor Hornak, Robert Abel, Asim Okur, Bentley Strockbine, Adrian Roitberg, Carlos Simmerling, Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters (2006)
  33. 2×A. Zemla, LGA: a method for finding 3D similarities in protein structures (2003)
  34. 2×Valerio Mariani, Marco Biasini, Alessandro Barbato, Torsten Schwede, lDDT: a local superposition-free score for comparing protein structures and models using distance difference tests (2013)
  35. 1×Q. Xie, M.-T. Luong, E. Hovy, Q. V. Le, Self-training with noisy student improves imagenet classification (2020)
  36. 4×Milot Mirdita, Lars von den Driesch, Clovis Galiez, Maria J. Martin, Johannes Söding, Martin Steinegger, Uniclust databases of clustered and deeply annotated protein sequences and alignments (2017)
  37. 2×J. Devlin, M.-W. Chang, K. Lee, K. Toutanova, BERT: pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding (2019)
  38. 1×R. Rao et al., MSA transformer (2021)
  39. 3×K. Tunyasuvunakool et al., Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome (2021)
  40. 1×Brian Kuhlman, Philip Bradley, Advances in protein structure prediction and design (2019)
  41. 1×Debora S Marks, Thomas A Hopf, Chris Sander, Protein structure prediction from sequence variation (2012)
  42. 2×Ning Qian, Terrence J. Sejnowski, Predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins using neural network models (1988)
  43. 2×Piero Fariselli, Osvaldo Olmea, Alfonso Valencia, Rita Casadio, Prediction of contact maps with neural networks and correlated mutations (2001)
  44. 1×Jianyi Yang, Ivan Anishchenko, Hahnbeom Park, Zhenling Peng, Sergey Ovchinnikov, David Baker, Improved protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations (2020)
  45. 1×Yang Li, Chengxin Zhang, Eric W. Bell, Wei Zheng, Xiaogen Zhou, Dong-Jun Yu …, Deducing high-accuracy protein contact-maps from a triplet of coevolutionary matrices through deep residual convolutional networks (2021)
  46. 1×K. He, X. Zhang, S. Ren, J. Sun, Deep residual learning for image recognition (2016)
  47. 1×Mohammed AlQuraishi, End-to-end differentiable learning of protein structure (2019)
  48. 1×Andrew W. Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green …, Protein structure prediction using multiple deep neural networks in the 13th Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP13) (2019)
  49. 1×J. Ingraham, A. J. Riesselman, C. Sander, D. S. Marks, Learning protein structure with a differentiable simulator (2019)
  50. 1×J. Li, Universal transforming geometric network (2019)
  51. 1×Jinbo Xu, Matthew McPartlon, Jin Li, Improved protein structure prediction by deep learning irrespective of co-evolution information (2021)
  52. 1×A. Vaswani et al., Attention is all you need (2017)
  53. 1×H. Wang et al., Axial-deeplab: stand-alone axial-attention for panoptic segmentation ()
  54. 1×Ethan C. Alley, Grigory Khimulya, Surojit Biswas, Mohammed AlQuraishi, George M. Church, Unified rational protein engineering with sequence-based deep representation learning (2019)
  55. 1×Michael Heinzinger, Ahmed Elnaggar, Yu Wang, Christian Dallago, Dmitrii Nechaev, Florian Matthes …, Modeling aspects of the language of life through transfer-learning protein sequences (2019)
  56. 1×Alexander Rives, Joshua Meier, Tom Sercu, Siddharth Goyal, Zeming Lin, Jason Liu …, Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences (2021)
  57. 1×Joana Pereira, Adam J. Simpkin, Marcus D. Hartmann, Daniel J. Rigden, Ronan M. Keegan, Andrei N. Lupas, High-accuracy protein structure prediction in CASP14 (2021)
  58. 1×M. Gupta et al., CryoEM and AI reveal a structure of SARS-CoV-2 Nsp2, a multifunctional protein involved in key host processes (2021)
  59. 1×J. Ingraham, V. K. Garg, R. Barzilay, T. Jaakkola, Generative models for graph-based protein design (2019)
  60. 1×L Steven Johnson, Sean R Eddy, Elon Portugaly, Hidden Markov model speed heuristic and iterative HMM search procedure (2010)
  61. 2×Michael Remmert, Andreas Biegert, Andreas Hauser, Johannes Söding, HHblits: lightning-fast iterative protein sequence searching by HMM-HMM alignment (2012)
  62. 1×The UniProt Consortium, UniProt: the universal protein knowledgebase in 2021 (2020)
  63. 2×Martin Steinegger, Johannes Söding, Clustering huge protein sequence sets in linear time (2018)
  64. 1×Martin Steinegger, Johannes Söding, MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets (2017)
  65. 1×Sebastian Deorowicz, Agnieszka Debudaj-Grabysz, Adam Gudyś, FAMSA: fast and accurate multiple sequence alignment of huge protein families (2016)
  66. 2×Martin Steinegger, Markus Meier, Milot Mirdita, Harald Vöhringer, Stephan J. Haunsberger, Johannes Söding, HH-suite3 for fast remote homology detection and deep protein annotation (2019)
  67. 1×Baris E. Suzek, Yuqi Wang, Hongzhan Huang, Peter B. McGarvey, Cathy H. Wu, the UniProt Consortium, UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches (2015)
  68. 1×Sean R. Eddy, Accelerated profile HMM searches (2011)
  69. 1×Peter Eastman, Jason Swails, John D. Chodera, Robert T. McGibbon, Yutong Zhao, Kyle A. Beauchamp …, OpenMM 7: rapid development of high performance algorithms for molecular dynamics (2017)
  70. 1×Martín Abadi et al., TensorFlow: large-scale machine learning on heterogeneous systems (2015)
  71. 1×M. Reynolds et al., Open sourcing Sonnet – a new library for constructing neural networks ()
  72. 1×Charles R. Harris, K. Jarrod Millman, Stéfan J. van der Walt, Ralf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau …, Array programming with NumPy (2020)
  73. 1×G. Van Rossum, F. L. Drake, Python 3 Reference Manual (CreateSpace, 2009). ()
  74. 1×, Bisong, E ()
  75. 1×, TensorFlow ()
  76. 1×Tianqi Wu, Jie Hou, Badri Adhikari, Jianlin Cheng, Analysis of several key factors influencing deep learning-based inter-residue contact prediction (2020)
  77. 1×Wangshu Jiang, Wimal Ubhayasekera, Michael C. Breed, Allison N. Norsworthy, Nina Serr, Harry L. T. Mobley …, MrpH, a new class of metal-binding adhesin, requires zinc to mediate biofilm formation (2020)
  78. 1×M. Dunne, P. Ernst, A. Sobieraj, A. Pluckthun, M. J. Loessner, The M23 peptidase domain of the Staphylococcal phage 2638A endolysin (2020)
  79. 1×Arina V. Drobysheva, Sofia A. Panafidina, Matvei V. Kolesnik, Evgeny I. Klimuk, Leonid Minakhin, Maria V. Yakunina …, Structure and function of virion RNA polymerase of a crAss-like phage (2021)
  80. 1×Nicolas Flaugnatti, Chiara Rapisarda, Martial Rey, Solène G Beauvois, Viet Anh Nguyen, Stéphane Canaan …, Structural basis for loading and inhibition of a bacterial T6SS phospholipase effector by the VgrG spike (2020)
  81. 1×Mohammad ElGamacy, Murray Coles, Patrick Ernst, Hongbo Zhu, Marcus D. Hartmann, Andreas Plückthun …, An interface-driven design strategy yields a novel, corrugated protein architecture (2018)
  82. 1×Ci Ji Lim, Alexandra T. Barbour, Arthur J. Zaug, Karen J. Goodrich, Allison E. McKay, Deborah S. Wuttke …, The structure of human CST reveals a decameric assembly bound to telomeric DNA (2020)
  83. 1×Vincent Debruycker, Andrew Hutchin, Matthieu Masureel, Emel Ficici, Chloé Martens, Pierre Legrand …, An embedded lipid in the multidrug transporter LmrP suggests a mechanism for polyspecificity (2020)
  84. 1×Thomas G. Flower, Cosmo Z. Buffalo, Richard M. Hooy, Marc Allaire, Xuefeng Ren, James H. Hurley, Structure of SARS-CoV-2 ORF8, a rapidly evolving immune evasion protein (2021)