Benchmarking Antibody Modeling Tools across Structure Prediction, Docking, and Paratope–Epitope Interface Analysis

Clicks: 31
ID: 324656
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
Steady

Ranked #23 of 173 articles by views in Bioinformatics advances

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 173 in total.

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 Motivation Computational antibody engineering requires reliable prediction of antibody variable-fragment structures, antigen–antibody complexes, and binding interfaces. However, publicly available tools for these tasks have rarely been compared across the complete workflow under a controlled and statistically grounded design. Results We evaluated ImmuneBuilder, IgFold, AlphaFold3, GRAMM, and dyMEAN on 50 non-redundant humanized antibody–antigen complexes using multiple retained predictions and paired statistical testing. All three antibody structure predictors were accurate, with AlphaFold3 performing best overall and for the third complementarity-determining region of the heavy chain. AlphaFold3 also substantially outperformed GRAMM and dyMEAN in complex prediction, producing medium- or high-quality binding interfaces for 46% of the complexes, although overall interface accuracy remained limited. When docking was reliable, AlphaFold3 accurately recovered epitope and paratope residues, salt bridges, and non-bonded contacts, but reproduced hydrogen bonds and fine-grained contact strengths less consistently. These findings provide practical guidance for selecting tools across antibody-modeling workflows and identify persistent limitations in fine-grained interface prediction. Availability and implementation Data, structural predictions, evaluation results, and analysis code are available from Zenodo under record 20710876.
Reference Key
openalex_W7202216029 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Zeyuan Yu, Jilei Wu, Ziyao Ning, Chunxia Qiao, Jing Wang, Xinying Li, Chenghua Liu, Guojiang Chen, Jiannan Feng, Jijun Yu
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Bioinformatics advances
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/bioadv/vbag223
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/bioadv/vbag223
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.