Assessing Structural Prediction Accuracy for Nanobody–Small Molecule Complexes

Clicks: 3
ID: 324424
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #16 of 29 articles by views in Protein Engineering Design and Selection

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Generative models have advanced profusely in recent years, generating great impact in computational modelling and structural bioinformatics. A part of computational protein design focuses on antibody and nanobody engineering, targeting proteic epitopes. By contrast, the development of nanobodies for small-molecule sensing remains a largely experimental field. In this work, we evaluate the performance of several state-of-the-art prediction softwares (AlfaFold3, Chai-1, Boltz-1, RosettaFold-AllAtom, FlowDock and OmegaFold), on nanobody-small molecule complexes, in an effort to pave the way of computational studies in this area. We tested the general nanobody and CDR accuracy, as well as ligand placement and orientation. We also explored the correlation of the results with intrinsic metrics of the models, such as pLDDT, and with the number of samples and recycles. Results show that most predictors perform well at predicting nanobody structures, but some struggle at ligand placement. AlphaFold3 outperformed the other softwares in all these tasks. Co-folding increased the accuracy of the predictions, modelling better CDR1. Contact analysis revealed that CDR1 was mostly involved in ligand binding instead of CDR3. This could point to a memorization tendency in the models, as most nanobody-antigen complexes target other proteins. Results also pointed to pLDDT as a good score to indicate CDR accuracy. Accuracy did slightly improve when increasing the number of samples but did not with the number of recycles. These findings highlight both the advantages and limitations of structure prediction methods for nanobody–small molecule complexes.
Reference Key
openalex_W4417303317 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Berta Bori-Bru, J.‐Pablo Salvador, Ramón Crehuet
Journal Protein Engineering Design and Selection
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/protein/gzag021
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/protein/gzag021
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.