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 2018-11-07

47
structures analysed (2 full · 4.3%)
00.0%
confidently wrong
12.1%
novel sequences
00.0%
novel & wrong
0.973
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 47 structures (0.0%) are confidently wrong; median TM-score is 0.973.

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 0.973 — 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
6GFF_A P01137 Transforming growth factor beta-1 X-ray 3.10 2018-04-30 1.30 87.26 0.62 0.79 2.98 21.44 0.76 ok
6H0F_B Q96SW2 Protein cereblon X-ray 3.25 2018-07-09 86.62 0.71 0.25 ok
6HTS_B Q9Y230 RuvB-like 2 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 84.12 0.76 0.20 ok
6GFF_B P01137 Transforming growth factor beta-1 X-ray 3.10 2018-04-30 79.56 0.77 0.19 ok
6HTS_A Q9Y265 RuvB-like 1 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 87.56 0.79 0.18 ok
6H0G_C Q9BU19 Zinc finger protein 692 X-ray 4.25 2018-07-09 53.38 0.71 0.15 ok
6HTS_R Q9C086 INO80 complex subunit B EM 4.80 2018-10-04 100.00 novel 85.84 0.66 0.83 61.81 3.14 0.14 ok
6HTS_I P68431 Histone H3.1 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 86.06 0.87 0.11 ok
6HCO_A Q9UNQ0 ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2 EM 3.58 2018-08-15 85.25 0.88 0.10 ok
6HTS_L P06899 Histone H2B type 1-J EM 4.80 2018-10-04 85.50 0.90 0.09 ok
6H0F_C Q13422 DNA-binding protein Ikaros X-ray 3.25 2018-07-09 47.75 0.84 0.07 ok
6E93_A Q8NAP3 Zinc finger and BTB domain-containing prot X-ray 1.75 2018-07-31 43.84 0.85 0.07 ok
6E94_A Q8NAP3 Zinc finger and BTB domain-containing prot X-ray 1.59 2018-07-31 43.84 0.85 0.06 ok
6HTS_J P62805 Histone H4 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 89.81 0.93 0.06 ok
6HTS_K P04908 Histone H2A type 1-B/E EM 4.80 2018-10-04 90.75 0.94 0.05 ok
6DXL_A Q86WV6 Stimulator of interferon protein X-ray 2.45 2018-06-29 83.75 0.94 0.05 ok
6HTS_G Q9ULG1 Chromatin-remodeling ATPase INO80 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 65.81 0.92 0.05 ok
6DXG_A Q86WV6 Stimulator of interferon protein X-ray 1.91 2018-06-28 83.75 0.95 0.04 ok
6HTS_H Q9H9F9 Actin-related protein 5 EM 4.80 2018-10-04 82.75 0.95 0.04 ok
6EAQ_A P0DOX5 Immunoglobulin gamma-1 heavy chain X-ray 2.22 2018-08-03 91.62 0.96 0.04 ok
6GL8_A P10415 Apoptosis regulator Bcl-2,Apoptosis regula X-ray 1.40 2018-05-23 72.00 0.95 0.04 ok
6MIB_A Q13418 Integrin-linked protein kinase X-ray 1.80 2018-09-19 88.19 0.96 0.03 ok
6HMX_A O43353 Receptor-interacting serine/threonine-prot X-ray 2.53 2018-09-13 76.06 0.96 0.03 ok
6HBU_A Q9UNQ0 ATP-binding cassette sub-family G member 2 EM 3.09 2018-08-13 85.25 0.97 0.02 ok
6E7F_A Q8NFU5 Inositol polyphosphate multikinase X-ray 2.50 2018-07-26 73.75 0.97 0.02 ok
6H0G_B Q96SW2 Protein cereblon X-ray 4.25 2018-07-09 86.62 0.98 0.02 ok
6H0G_A Q16531 DNA damage-binding protein 1,DNA damage-bi X-ray 4.25 2018-07-09 92.00 0.98 0.02 ok
6ILI_A P36639 7,8-dihydro-8-oxoguanine triphosphatase X-ray 1.45 2018-10-18 97.19 0.98 0.02 ok
6MIB_B Q9NVD7 Alpha-parvin X-ray 1.80 2018-09-19 79.62 0.98 0.02 ok
6H0F_A Q16531 DNA damage-binding protein 1,DNA damage-bi X-ray 3.25 2018-07-09 92.00 0.98 0.02 ok
6DPR_A P14902 Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 X-ray 3.20 2018-06-09 93.06 0.98 0.02 ok
6MQ6_A P14902 Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 X-ray 3.05 2018-10-09 93.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6GFF_I Q14392 Leucine-rich repeat-containing protein 32 X-ray 3.10 2018-04-30 86.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6DPQ_A P14902 Indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase 1 X-ray 2.94 2018-06-09 93.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6EAQ_C O75015 Low affinity immunoglobulin gamma Fc regio X-ray 2.22 2018-08-03 88.62 0.99 0.01 ok
6H5W_A P12821 Angiotensin-converting enzyme X-ray 1.37 2018-07-25 90.94 0.99 0.01 ok
6GJJ_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.38 2018-05-16 98.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6E5V_A O00222 Metabotropic glutamate receptor 8 X-ray 2.95 2018-07-23 84.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6GJL_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.16 2018-05-16 98.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6GJN_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.70 2018-05-16 98.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6HRH_A P22557 5-aminolevulinate synthase, erythroid-spec X-ray 2.30 2018-09-27 82.19 0.99 0.01 ok
6GJI_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.60 2018-05-16 98.06 0.99 0.01 ok
6GJM_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.35 2018-05-16 98.06 0.99 0.00 ok
6GJP_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.94 2018-05-16 98.06 1.00 0.00 ok
6GJR_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.69 2018-05-16 98.06 1.00 0.00 ok
6GJY_A P62937 Peptidyl-prolyl cis-trans isomerase A X-ray 1.29 2018-05-17 98.06 1.00 0.00 ok
6H5X_A P12821 Angiotensin-converting enzyme X-ray 1.80 2018-07-25 90.94 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.