The introduction of AlphaFold2 [1], its subsequent AlphaFold3 version [2], and the public release of hundreds of millions of protein structures predicted by this landmark method [3], [4] have fundamentally changed the fields of structural biology and protein bioinformatics. Structural biology, which once relied on painstaking and relatively slow experimental determination of protein structure, has become one of abundance, with structural models now available for nearly every known protein sequence. Protein bioinformatics has evolved from developing structure prediction tools to analyzing and applying structural models. This special issue of the Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal commemorates these transitions by exploring the many diverse ways in which AlphaFold is used. We initiated this special issue in July of 2024 and were flooded with submissions. We extended the original submission deadline from October 31, 2024, to January 31, 2025, to accommodate this strong interest. The resulting special issue includes 32 articles that collectively define the current state of structural bioinformatics. We are deeply grateful to the authors who entrusted us with their studies, the reviewers who provided their timely and insightful advice, and the editorial team for their help with this process and encouragement to organize this special issue. Following, we provide a brief overview of our special issue.
A large group of articles in our special issue focuses on critical and rigorous benchmarking and corresponding limitations of AlphaFold. Lu et al. [5] review advances and challenges in multimeric complex prediction. Thanu et al. [6] show that traditional template-based modelling still outperforms AlphaFold 3 for insect odorant receptors, while Surya et al. [7] reveal erroneous homodimer predictions by AlphaFold-Multimer for flavivirus NS4B proteins. Yu et al. [8] provide a large-scale proteome-wide assessment of secondary structure and solvent accessibility predictions generated from AlphaFold results, revealing that they outperform other methods. Some works highlight limitations in conformational sampling [9] and in the prediction of intrinsically disordered binding regions [10].
Another cluster of contributions centers on innovations by introducing new tools and predictors built upon AlphaFold outputs. These resources include SpatialPPIv2 for protein-protein interface prediction [11], VarMeter2 for pathogenic variant prediction [12], Struct2SL for synthetic-lethality prediction [13], bindNode24 for binding-site prediction [14], and ToxDL 2.0 for toxicity prediction [15]. Articles in this group also address the prediction of enzymatic functions that combines structure and sequence-derived information [16], physics-aware approach for evaluation of protein complex models [17], improvements to the prediction of structures for chimeric proteins using windowed multiple sequence alignments [18], and improvements to the modelling of the protein folding process [19].
This special issue also encompasses several hybrid approaches that investigate AlphaFold structures together with molecular dynamics, docking, and/or experimental validation. Examples include accelerated molecular dynamics-based exploration of fungal hydrophobins [20], conformational sampling of the mitochondrial ADP/ATP carrier [21], LisghtDock-based antibody optimization [22], HADDOCK/MD refinement of antibody-antigen interfaces [23], and mass spectrometry-guided modelling of nanobody-antigen interactions [24]. Authors also explore topoisomerase substrate binding with AlphaFold 3 models [25], pLDDT-weighted flexibility simulations [26], and the use of molecular dynamics in membrane positioning for 7-transmembrane RGS proteins [27] and in the context of predicting receptor-ligand binding affinity in plant-microbe interfaces [28].
Several studies concentrate on tackling challenging systems where solutions are facilitated by new structural models. These works cover drug-target screening in Trypanosoma cruzi [29], structural characterization of novel bacteriophage components [30], LSm-like phage proteins [31], bacterial DinG-like proteins [32], prokaryotic PolB2 and Pol V mutasomes [33], and disease-associated variants, such as the Alzheimer’s-linked TREM2 R47H [34], wound-healing molecules from fish proteins [35], and plasticity of the interleukin-6 protein family [36].
The articles in this collection demonstrate that we have entered a "post-structure" era where the protein structure itself is no longer the final goal, but rather it is an input or variable in a larger equation. By exploring the breadth and quality of the AlphaFold predictions in the context of the physical rigor of molecular dynamics, benchmarking and experimental validation efforts, and building a new generation of tools for protein folding and function modelling, the research in this special issue paves the way for a deeper, more accurate, dynamic, and actionable understanding of biological systems.
Contributor Information
Lukasz Kurgan, Email: lkurgan@vcu.edu.
Jianyi Yang, Email: yangjy@sdu.edu.cn.
References
- 1.Jumper J., et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature. 2021;596:583–589. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Abramson J., et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature. 2024;630:493–500. doi: 10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Varadi M., et al. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database: massively expanding the structural coverage of protein-sequence space with high-accuracy models. Nucleic Acids Res. 2022;50:D439–D444. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkab1061. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Varadi M., et al. AlphaFold Protein Structure Database in 2024: providing structure coverage for over 214 million protein sequences. Nucleic Acids Res. 2024;52:D368–D375. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad1011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Lu D., Yu S., Huang Y., Gong X. Multimeric protein interaction and complex prediction: Structure, dynamics and function. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.05.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Thanu V.C., Jabeen A., Zographos S.E., Taylor P.W., Ranganathan S. TBM preferred to AlphaFold 3 for functional models of insect odorant receptors. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:3908–3918. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Surya W., Tan P., Honey S.S., Mehta D., Torres J. Flavivirus NS4B proteins do not form homodimers: discrepancies with an AlphaFold-based oligomeric model. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1660–1672. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Yu J., Zhao B., Kurgan L. Comprehensive assessment of AlphaFold’s predictions of secondary structure and solvent accessibility at the amino acid-level in eukaryotic, bacterial and archaeal proteins. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.05.047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Torres J., Pervushin K., Surya W. Prediction of conformational states in a coronavirus channel using Alphafold-2 and DeepMSA2: Strengths and limitations. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:3730–3740. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.021. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Zhang F., Kurgan L. Evaluation of predictions of disordered binding regions in the CAID2 experiment. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.12.009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Hu W., Ohue M. SpatialPPIv2: Enhancing protein–protein interaction prediction through graph neural networks with protein language models. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:508–518. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.022. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Ohno S., et al. VarMeter2: An enhanced structure-based method for predicting pathogenic missense variants through Mahalanobis distance. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1034–1047. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.02.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Huang Y., Yuan R., Li Y., Xing Z., Li J. Struct2SL: Synthetic lethality prediction based on AlphaFold2 structure information and Multilayer Perceptron. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1570–1577. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Erckert K., Birkeneder F., Rost B. bindNode24: Competitive binding residue prediction with 60% smaller model. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1060–1066. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.02.042. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Zhu L., et al. ToxDL 2.0: Protein toxicity prediction using a pretrained language model and graph neural networks. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1538–1549. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.04.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Fujita S., Terada T. Enhanced prediction of protein functional identity through the integration of sequence and structural features. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:4124–4130. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.11.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17.Wang H., Sun M., Xie L., Liu D., Zhang G. Physical-aware model accuracy estimation for protein complex using deep learning method. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:478–487. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.017. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18.Vedula S., Bronstein A.M., Marx A. Improving prediction accuracy in chimeric proteins with windowed multiple sequence alignment. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.07.039. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19.Roterman I., Slupina M., Konieczny L. Protein folding: Funnel model revised. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:3827–3838. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Agwora D., et al. Structural elucidation of four fungal hydrophobins belonging to classes I and II: Results from Alphafold and accelerated molecular dynamics simulations. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1067–1080. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Quadrotta V., Polticelli F. Modeling the different conformations of the human mitochondrial ADP/ATP carrier using AlphaFold and molecular dynamics simulations of the protein-ligand complexes. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1265–1277. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Stefańczyk E., Mitura A., Utratna M., Staniszewska M. Investigating and evaluating potential antigen binding sites for monoclonal anti-HER2 antibodies: The LightDock approach. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Sornsuwan K., et al. Plasticity of BioPhi-driven humanness optimization in ScFv-CD99 binding affinity validated through AlphaFold, HADDOCK, and MD simulations. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:369–382. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24.Opuni K.F., et al. Mass spectrometry-complemented molecular modeling predicts the interaction interface for a camelid single-domain antibody targeting the Plasmodium falciparum circumsporozoite protein’s C-terminal domain. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:3300–3314. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.08.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Mamun Y., et al. Substrate binding of human and bacterial type IA topoisomerase: An experimentation with AlphaFold 3.0. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1342–1349. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.041. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Wróblewski K., Kmiecik S. Integrating AlphaFold pLDDT Scores into CABS-flex for enhanced protein flexibility simulations. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:4350–4356. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.11.047. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27.Oliveira C.C., et al. A molecular dynamics study of membrane positioning for 7-transmembrane RGS proteins to modulate G-protein-mediated signaling in plants. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:1529–1537. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.04.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28.Prates E.T., et al. Predicting receptor-ligand pairing preferences in plant-microbe interfaces via molecular dynamics and machine learning. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.06.029. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29.Ros-Lucas A., et al. Identification of novel compounds against Trypanosoma cruzi using AlphaFold structures. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.05.002. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ko S., Kim J., Cho J.-H., Kim Y., Kim D. Deep learning-guided structural analysis of a novel bacteriophage KPP105 against multidrug-resistant Klebsiella pneumoniae. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.04.032. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31.Kim J., et al. Tevenvirinae phages encode a family of LSm-like fold proteins. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.05.028. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Cheng K. Structure, function and evolution of the bacterial DinG-like proteins. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025 doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.03.023. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33.Timinskas K., Timinskas A., Venclovas Č. Common themes in architecture and interactions of prokaryotic PolB2 and Pol V mutasomes inferred from in silico studies. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:401–410. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.010. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34.Pillai J., Sung K., Wu C. Predicting the impact of missense mutations on an unresolved protein’s stability, structure, and function: A case study of Alzheimer’s disease-associated TREM2 R47H variant. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:564–574. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.01.024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35.Rodríguez M.I.A., Rueda A.J.V., Hernández-Pérez J., Benavides J., Sanchez M.L. Homology-based identification and structural analysis of Pangasius hypophthalmus Annexins and Serine proteases to search molecules for wound healing applications. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2024;23:3680–3691. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2024.10.015. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Düsterhöft S., Greve J.N., Garbers C. Investigating plasticity within the interleukin-6 family with AlphaFold-Multimer. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2025;27:946–959. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2025.02.030. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
