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 2018-10-31

28
structures analysed (4 full · 14.3%)
00.0%
confidently wrong
00.0%
novel sequences
00.0%
novel & wrong
0.957
median TM-score

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

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: 0 of 28 structures (0.0%) are confidently wrong; median TM-score is 0.957.

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 0.957 — 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
6MU3_H P0DOX5 Fab 2G12, heavy chain X-ray 2.33 2018-10-22 0.00 91.73 0.54 0.90 5.52 13.01 0.68 ok
6MUB_H P0DOX5 Fab 2G12, heavy chain X-ray 2.50 2018-10-22 0.00 90.73 0.52 0.90 5.23 12.97 0.67 ok
6MNL_A O43524 FOXO3a peptide NMR 2018-10-02 65.49 0.17 0.62 37.50 4.89 0.20 ok
6MUB_K P0DOX7 Fab 2G12, light chain X-ray 2.50 2018-10-22 96.19 0.81 0.19 ok
6MU3_K P0DOX7 Fab 2G12, light chain X-ray 2.33 2018-10-22 96.19 0.81 0.18 ok
6MIF_A P48059 LIM and senescent cell antigen-like-contai NMR 2018-09-19 63.70 84.79 0.66 0.68 55.38 4.25 0.17 ok
6GK2_F Q9UDY8 Mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue lymphoma EM 4.90 2018-05-18 79.44 0.86 0.11 ok
6MNL_B O60885 Bromodomain-containing protein 4 NMR 2018-10-02 55.31 0.82 0.10 ok
6MJ7_A Q13501 Sequestosome-1 X-ray 1.41 2018-09-20 67.25 0.89 0.07 ok
6GK2_H O95999 B-cell lymphoma/leukemia 10 EM 4.90 2018-05-18 69.50 0.92 0.06 ok
6MIU_A Q13501 Sequestosome-1, Arg-Glu peptide chimera X-ray 1.90 2018-09-20 67.25 0.92 0.05 ok
6MB3_A P0DOX5 Fab311 heavy chain EM 3.37 2018-08-29 91.62 0.95 0.04 ok
6HXF_A O94804 Serine/threonine-protein kinase 10 X-ray 2.09 2018-10-17 73.25 0.94 0.04 ok
6HKT_0 P04908 Histone H2A type 1-B/E X-ray 9.70 2018-09-08 90.75 0.96 0.04 ok
6H78_A Q9GZZ9 Ubiquitin-like modifier-activating enzyme X-ray 2.70 2018-07-30 86.75 0.96 0.04 ok
6MHG_A V9HW68 Fab311 heavy chain EM 3.57 2018-09-17 87.00 0.96 0.03 ok
6HKT_B P62805 Histone H4 X-ray 9.70 2018-09-08 89.81 0.97 0.02 ok
6DFD_A Q8NE01 Metal transporter CNNM3 X-ray 1.90 2018-05-14 66.69 0.97 0.02 ok
6H77_A Q9GZZ9 Ubiquitin-like modifier-activating enzyme X-ray 2.10 2018-07-30 86.75 0.98 0.02 ok
6HKT_1 P06899 Histone H2B type 1-J X-ray 9.70 2018-09-08 85.50 0.98 0.02 ok
6H77_Q P61960 Ubiquitin-fold modifier 1 X-ray 2.10 2018-07-30 91.62 0.98 0.02 ok
6DJ3_A Q9H8M5 Metal transporter CNNM2 X-ray 2.60 2018-05-24 70.38 0.98 0.02 ok
6HKT_A P68431 Histone H3.1 X-ray 9.70 2018-09-08 86.06 0.99 0.01 ok
5QIL_A P36897 TGF-beta receptor type-1 X-ray 1.98 2018-08-05 84.19 0.99 0.01 ok
5QIK_A P36897 TGF-beta receptor type-1 X-ray 1.58 2018-08-05 84.19 0.99 0.01 ok
5QIM_A P36897 TGF-beta receptor type-1 X-ray 1.75 2018-08-05 84.19 0.99 0.01 ok
6HSK_A Q9BY41 Histone deacetylase 8 X-ray 2.10 2018-10-01 95.31 1.00 0.00 ok
5QIN_A P37173 TGF-beta receptor type-2 X-ray 1.57 2018-08-05 81.00 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.