Benchmarking Antibody Modeling Tools across Structure Prediction, Docking, and Paratope–Epitope Interface Analysis
Clicks: 1
ID: 324656
2026
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.
Reader Engagement
0.0
/100
1 views
0 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Ranked #93 of 97 articles by views in Bioinformatics advances
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate 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
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 |
| Journal | Bioinformatics advances |
| Year | 2026 |
| DOI |
10.1093/bioadv/vbag223
|
| URL | |
| 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.