Live Stats, next update: Wed 02 Sep
Human PDBs Analysed
Confidently Wrong
Novel + Confidently Wrong
DB size
Visitors
Full statistics →
New PDB Depositions vs. Their Blind AlphaFold Predictions — A Running Test of “Is Folding Solved?”

Release week 2018-09-26

34
structures analysed (2 full · 5.9%)
25.9%
confidently wrong
00.0%
novel sequences
00.0%
novel & wrong
0.972
median TM-score

Zoomed into the red "confidently wrong" box above (pLDDT ≥ 70, TM < 0.5) — the structures AlphaFold got confidently wrong.

The worst offenders ranked, one row per protein (AlphaFold has one model per sequence, so repeat depositions are collapsed — “×N” marks how many structures of that protein exist; the worst is shown). Each row joins what AlphaFold claimed (blue, pLDDT/100) to what the experiment showed (red, TM-score) — the longer the bar, the bigger the miss. Hover a dot to preview its Cα-deviation ribbon; click to open the full entry.

How to read this

Every point is one experimental protein structure. The horizontal axis is AlphaFold's own confidence in its prediction (mean pLDDT, 0–100). The vertical axis is how well that blind prediction actually matches the experiment (TM-score, 0–1; above 0.5 means the same fold, above 0.9 near-identical). Marker size grows with the FRAUD score (confidence-weighted error).

Cutoff: the shaded red box is the "confidently wrong" zone — AlphaFold was confident (mean pLDDT above 70) yet the fold is wrong (TM-score below 0.5). A predictor that had truly solved folding would leave that box empty.

Take-home: 2 of 34 structures (5.9%) are confidently wrong; median TM-score is 0.972.

Read moreShow less — how each metric is calculated

TM-score: how similar the two 3D shapes are overall, 0–1 (a random pair scores ~0.17, an identical fold ~1). Length-normalised so large and small proteins compare fairly. TM = (1/L) Σᵢ 1/(1 + (dᵢ/d₀)²) — dᵢ is the gap between the i-th aligned Cα atoms after best-fit superposition, and d₀ = 1.24(L−15)^⅓ − 1.8 sets the distance scale for length L. Ref: Zhang & Skolnick, Proteins 2004 doi:10.1002/prot.20264; computed with TM-align, doi:10.1093/nar/gki524.

pLDDT: AlphaFold's own confidence in each residue, 0–100 (higher = surer). It is the model predicting its own accuracy before ever seeing the experiment. We plot the per-structure mean. pLDDT = (1/N) Σᵢ pLDDTᵢ, where pLDDTᵢ is the network's confidence output for residue i.

FRAUD score: the headline number — how wrong the prediction was, weighted by how confident AlphaFold was, so a big error it was sure about counts most. FRAUD = (1/N) Σᵢ (pLDDTᵢ/100) · min(Δᵢ,15)/15, where Δᵢ is residue i's Cα distance from the experiment (Å) after superposition, capped at 15 Å. Runs 0 (perfect) to 1.

Novelty: how little AlphaFold had to go on — 100 minus the highest sequence identity between this protein and any structure released before the 2018-04-30 training cutoff. High = genuinely unseen (100% = nothing similar was ever in the training set). novelty = 100 − maxₚ identity(s, p) over pre-cutoff PDB chains p, with identity = 100 × (matching aligned residues)/(alignment length), from an MMseqs2 search.

Homology: the point colour. High novelty (above 70%) flags the sequence as novel (amber) — AlphaFold had no close template; otherwise a pre-cutoff homolog existed (blue) it could have learned the fold from. novel ⇔ novelty > 70%.

What the metrics mean

TM-score (0–1): overall fold match — above 0.5 is the same fold, above 0.9 near-identical. Cα-RMSD (Å): average backbone distance after best-fit superposition — lower is better (under 2 Å is excellent). lDDT (0–1): local accuracy measured without superposition — above 0.8 is good. Each bar counts how many structures fall in that range.

Take-home: median TM-score 0.972 — most predictions match the experimental fold well, with a long tail that do not.

Read moreShow less — how each metric is calculated

TM-score: overall shape match, 0–1 (above 0.5 = same fold, above 0.9 near-identical), length-normalised. TM = (1/L) Σᵢ 1/(1 + (dᵢ/d₀)²) with dᵢ the aligned-Cα gap after superposition and d₀ = 1.24(L−15)^⅓ − 1.8. Ref: Zhang & Skolnick, Proteins 2004 doi:10.1002/prot.20264.

Cα-RMSD: the average straight-line distance between matching backbone Cα atoms once the two structures are best-fit superposed (Å; lower is better, under ~2 Å excellent). RMSD = √( (1/N) Σᵢ |Pᵢ − (R·Qᵢ + t)|² ), with Pᵢ/Qᵢ the experimental/model Cα coordinates and R,t the rotation and translation from Kabsch superposition.

lDDT: local accuracy with no superposition — the fraction of short-range inter-residue distances the model reproduces, so it is not fooled by a single wrongly-placed domain. lDDT = (1/N) Σᵢ ¼ Σ_t 1[ |d_exp − d_model| < t ] over thresholds t ∈ {0.5, 1, 2, 4} Å and all residue pairs within 15 Å.

Trend over time

The blue line is the mean TM-score of the structures by their deposit month; the red bars count how many were confidently wrong. Binning by deposit date (rather than by when we processed them) gives an even timeline, tracking whether AlphaFold's accuracy on newly-deposited structures is holding steady, improving, or slipping as the PDB keeps growing. Months with fewer than 5 structures are omitted so each point is a meaningful average. A dashed trend line is drawn only if the change over time is statistically significant.

Read moreShow less — how each metric is calculated

Mean TM-score: the month's average shape-match score. TM̄ = (1/M) Σ TM over the M structures deposited that month.

Trend line: a monotonic-trend test over the monthly means — Mann-Kendall (Kendall's τ) for significance, with a robust Theil-Sen slope for the line. Rank-based, so it tolerates the skewed TM distribution and noisy low-count months. Shown only when p < 0.05; otherwise a note reports that no significant trend was found.

Confidently wrong: the count that were both confident and wrong. count( mean pLDDT > 70 AND TM < 0.5 ).

Matched structures

PDBUniProtProteinMethodÅDeposited Novelty %pLDDTTMlDDTGDT_TSRMSDFRAUDFlag
6E28_C Q9H257 Caspase recruitment domain-containing prot X-ray 1.36 2018-07-10 47.50 89.49 0.48 0.89 1.56 19.56 0.80 wrong
6E27_C Q9H257 Caspase recruitment domain-containing prot X-ray 1.81 2018-07-10 47.50 89.95 0.48 0.89 2.37 19.34 0.79 wrong
6H6A_E P06239 GLY-CYS-GLY-CYS-SER-SER X-ray 2.00 2018-07-26 83.62 0.74 0.21 ok
6E25_A Q9H257 Caspase recruitment domain-containing prot NMR 2018-07-10 80.62 0.83 0.14 ok
6E26_A Q9H257 Caspase recruitment domain-containing prot NMR 2018-07-10 80.62 0.85 0.12 ok
6DJL_A P62491 Ras-related protein Rab-11A X-ray 3.10 2018-05-25 87.19 0.88 0.10 ok
6E8R_A Q86XE0 Sorting nexin-32 X-ray 2.27 2018-07-31 88.81 0.89 0.10 ok
6DXX_A Q02083 N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidas X-ray 2.70 2018-07-01 92.25 0.90 0.09 ok
6GGN_A Q00987 E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase Mdm2 X-ray 2.00 2018-05-03 62.59 0.88 0.07 ok
6DJL_B O60239 SH3 domain-binding protein 5 X-ray 3.10 2018-05-25 70.62 0.90 0.07 ok
5ZXB_A Q07912 Activated CDC42 kinase 1 X-ray 2.20 2018-05-18 61.28 0.95 0.03 ok
6A9Y_A Q9BQI5 SH3-containing GRB2-like protein 3-interac X-ray 2.70 2018-07-16 60.50 0.95 0.03 ok
6GN0_A P31946 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha X-ray 3.24 2018-05-29 93.44 0.97 0.03 ok
6DV2_G P40939 Trifunctional enzyme subunit alpha, mitoch X-ray 3.60 2018-06-22 92.44 0.97 0.03 ok
6GNN_A P31946 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha X-ray 3.79 2018-05-31 93.44 0.97 0.03 ok
6H8R_A P54829 Tyrosine-protein phosphatase non-receptor X-ray 1.66 2018-08-03 72.06 0.97 0.02 ok
6DV2_A P55084 Trifunctional enzyme subunit beta, mitocho X-ray 3.60 2018-06-22 91.12 0.98 0.02 ok
6GNK_A P31946 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha X-ray 2.55 2018-05-31 93.44 0.98 0.02 ok
6HDO_A Q6PL18 ATPase family AAA domain-containing protei X-ray 2.61 2018-08-18 61.53 0.97 0.02 ok
6A8P_A P21980 Protein-glutamine gamma-glutamyltransferas X-ray 2.54 2018-07-09 92.88 0.98 0.02 ok
6GNJ_A P31946 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha X-ray 3.24 2018-05-31 93.44 0.98 0.02 ok
6HDN_A Q6PL18 ATPase family AAA domain-containing protei X-ray 1.90 2018-08-18 61.53 0.97 0.02 ok
6GH9_A Q9Y4E8 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 15 X-ray 2.09 2018-05-06 75.38 0.97 0.02 ok
6GN8_A P31946 14-3-3 protein beta/alpha X-ray 2.34 2018-05-30 93.44 0.98 0.02 ok
6GHA_A Q9Y4E8 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 15,U X-ray 1.98 2018-05-06 75.38 0.98 0.02 ok
6DXX_B Q02083 N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidas X-ray 2.70 2018-07-01 92.25 0.98 0.02 ok
6HDQ_A O60885 Bromodomain-containing protein 4 X-ray 1.70 2018-08-18 55.31 0.98 0.01 ok
5ZZ4_A Q06187 Tyrosine-protein kinase BTK X-ray 2.90 2018-05-30 84.44 0.99 0.01 ok
6H6A_D Q13432 Protein unc-119 homolog A X-ray 2.00 2018-07-26 77.88 0.98 0.01 ok
6DU5_A Q86W50 U6 small nuclear RNA (adenine-(43)-N(6))-m X-ray 3.01 2018-06-19 78.50 0.99 0.01 ok
6H6A_G Q13432 Protein unc-119 homolog A X-ray 2.00 2018-07-26 77.88 0.99 0.01 ok
6DU4_A Q86W50 U6 small nuclear RNA (adenine-(43)-N(6))-m X-ray 1.70 2018-06-19 78.50 0.99 0.01 ok
6DU3_A Q9GZU7 Carboxy-terminal domain RNA polymerase II X-ray 2.58 2018-06-19 81.00 0.99 0.01 ok
6DXW_A Q02083 N-acylethanolamine-hydrolyzing acid amidas X-ray 2.30 2018-07-01 92.25 1.00 0.00 ok

Click a column header to sort. FRAUD = confidence-weighted error; a structure is flagged confidently wrong when mean pLDDT > 70 yet TM-score < 0.5.