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 2018-12-12

40
structures analysed (13 full · 32.5%)
12.5%
confidently wrong
410.0%
novel sequences
00.0%
novel & wrong
0.931
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: 1 of 40 structures (2.5%) are confidently wrong; median TM-score is 0.931.

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 0.931 — 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
6GNX_A Q3KP22 Membrane-anchored junction protein X-ray 2.90 2018-06-01 100.00 novel 66.54 0.43 0.33 0.26 26.49 0.64 ok
6GNY_A Q3KP22 Membrane-anchored junction protein X-ray 1.85 2018-06-01 100.00 novel 67.30 0.49 0.41 0.26 24.10 0.63 ok
6GNX_B Q8NHR7 Telomere repeats-binding bouquet formation X-ray 2.90 2018-06-01 100.00 novel 64.34 0.31 0.77 12.50 10.29 0.36 ok
6GNY_B Q8NHR7 Telomere repeats-binding bouquet formation X-ray 1.85 2018-06-01 100.00 novel 65.30 0.30 0.76 24.17 8.29 0.28 ok
6DSZ_C Q9BW61 DET1- and DDB1-associated protein 1 X-ray 3.09 2018-06-14 72.96 0.22 0.76 35.53 5.25 0.23 wrong
6HPR_A Q13490 Baculoviral IAP repeat-containing protein X-ray 1.70 2018-09-21 76.62 0.77 0.17 ok
6MIZ_A O94759 Transient receptor potential cation channe EM 6.10 2018-09-20 78.19 0.79 0.16 ok
6MJ2_A O94759 Transient receptor potential cation channe EM 6.36 2018-09-20 78.19 0.82 0.14 ok
6MG1_A P17676 CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta X-ray 1.75 2018-09-12 59.69 0.81 0.12 ok
6DSZ_A Q16531 DNA damage-binding protein 1 X-ray 3.09 2018-06-14 92.00 0.88 0.11 ok
6MG2_A P17676 CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta X-ray 1.93 2018-09-12 59.69 0.84 0.10 ok
6MET_A P01730 T-cell surface glycoprotein CD4 EM 4.50 2018-09-07 85.25 0.89 0.10 ok
6MG3_A P17676 CCAAT/enhancer-binding protein beta X-ray 2.05 2018-09-12 59.69 0.85 0.09 ok
6MIX_A O94759 Transient receptor potential cation channe EM 3.60 2018-09-20 78.19 0.91 0.07 ok
6MET_B P51681 C-C chemokine receptor type 5 EM 4.50 2018-09-07 85.38 0.92 0.07 ok
6MEO_B P51681 C-C chemokine receptor type 5 EM 3.90 2018-09-06 85.38 0.92 0.07 ok
6N34_A Q9Y6Y0 Influenza virus NS1A-binding protein X-ray 2.80 2018-11-14 66.70 93.13 0.93 0.94 88.66 1.28 0.06 ok
6I2Y_A O94804 Serine/threonine-protein kinase 10 X-ray 2.56 2018-11-02 73.25 0.92 0.06 ok
6E5X_B Q7Z6E9 E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase RBBP6 X-ray 1.50 2018-07-23 47.85 0.35 0.82 67.31 1.93 0.06 ok
6A22_A P51449 Nuclear receptor ROR-gamma X-ray 2.55 2018-06-08 74.19 0.92 0.06 ok
6N2K_A P01116 GTPase KRas X-ray 1.72 2018-11-13 0.00 95.11 0.95 0.92 92.90 1.47 0.05 ok
6N2J_A P01116 GTPase KRas X-ray 1.80 2018-11-13 0.00 95.17 0.96 0.92 93.75 1.47 0.05 ok
6MEO_A P01730 T-cell surface glycoprotein CD4 EM 3.90 2018-09-06 85.25 0.94 0.05 ok
6HPR_B P0CG47 Polyubiquitin-B X-ray 1.70 2018-09-21 93.44 0.96 0.04 ok
6DHB_A Q8TDQ0 Hepatitis A virus cellular receptor 2 X-ray 1.70 2018-05-19 71.75 0.94 0.04 ok
6N31_A Q9GZL7 Ribosome biogenesis protein WDR12 X-ray 2.60 2018-11-14 69.20 92.77 0.98 0.94 94.89 1.40 0.04 ok
6A22_B Q9Y618 Nuclear receptor corepressor 2 X-ray 2.55 2018-06-08 0.00 53.83 0.52 0.82 86.67 1.17 0.04 ok
6HHO_A Q13546 Receptor-interacting serine/threonine-prot X-ray 3.49 2018-08-28 69.75 0.95 0.03 ok
6N8G_A Q9NWZ3 Interleukin-1 receptor-associated kinase 4 X-ray 2.00 2018-11-29 0.00 92.74 0.99 0.98 98.18 0.57 0.03 ok
6N3H_A Q9Y6Y0 Influenza virus NS1A-binding protein X-ray 2.60 2018-11-15 0.00 93.65 0.97 0.97 97.72 0.65 0.02 ok
6HPR_C P62837 Ubiquitin-conjugating enzyme E2 D2 X-ray 1.70 2018-09-21 96.50 0.98 0.02 ok
6AFR_A O60885 Bromodomain-containing protein 4 X-ray 2.00 2018-08-08 55.31 0.96 0.02 ok
6IL3_A P36888 Receptor-type tyrosine-protein kinase FLT3 X-ray 2.50 2018-10-16 75.94 0.98 0.01 ok
6IIM_A P54578 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 14 X-ray 2.21 2018-10-07 81.94 0.99 0.01 ok
6IIL_A P54578 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 14 X-ray 2.20 2018-10-07 81.94 0.99 0.01 ok
6MX8_A Q9UM73 ALK tyrosine kinase receptor X-ray 1.96 2018-10-30 68.19 0.99 0.01 ok
6IIK_A P54578 Ubiquitin carboxyl-terminal hydrolase 14 X-ray 1.97 2018-10-06 81.94 0.99 0.01 ok
6I6Z_A P15085 Carboxypeptidase A1 X-ray 1.72 2018-11-15 95.19 1.00 0.00 ok
6MKY_A Q15435 Protein phosphatase 1 regulatory subunit 7 X-ray 2.90 2018-09-26 87.00 1.00 0.00 ok
6MON_A Q9NRG4 N-lysine methyltransferase SMYD2 X-ray 2.71 2018-10-04 97.44 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.