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 2019-01-16

27
structures analysed (15 full · 55.6%)
13.7%
confidently wrong
13.7%
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 27 structures (3.7%) 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
6J12_A P05546 Heparin cofactor 2 NMR 2018-12-27 0.00 87.29 0.35 0.46 17.86 9.04 0.46 wrong
6IRA_B Q12879 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 2A EM 4.50 2018-11-12 17.80 84.59 0.91 0.78 53.73 3.27 0.16 ok
6MID_L A0A0B4J1U3 monoclonal antibody ZIKV-195 light chain EM 4.00 2018-09-19 90.00 0.83 0.15 ok
6IRH_B Q12879 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 2A EM 7.80 2018-11-12 17.80 84.45 0.92 0.74 57.54 3.07 0.15 ok
6AKL_A Q9BRV8 Suppressor of IKBKE 1 X-ray 1.75 2018-09-02 85.44 0.83 0.15 ok
6IRG_B Q12879 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 2A EM 5.50 2018-11-12 17.80 84.40 0.92 0.76 58.01 3.02 0.14 ok
6IRF_B Q12879 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 2A EM 5.10 2018-11-12 17.80 84.40 0.92 0.76 58.01 3.02 0.14 ok
6IRH_A Q05586 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 1 EM 7.80 2018-11-12 2.50 89.47 0.95 0.79 68.09 2.34 0.11 ok
6NJE_A Q14807 Kinesin-like protein KIF22 X-ray 2.20 2019-01-03 59.50 90.74 0.91 0.83 76.52 3.75 0.11 ok
6IRG_A Q05586 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 1 EM 5.50 2018-11-12 2.50 89.45 0.96 0.80 70.11 2.24 0.11 ok
6IRF_A Q05586 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 1 EM 5.10 2018-11-12 2.50 89.45 0.96 0.80 70.11 2.24 0.11 ok
6N9T_A Q6MZV7 Immunoglobulin G1 FC X-ray 2.58 2018-12-04 0.00 94.98 0.90 0.98 70.89 1.86 0.11 ok
6AKM_A Q9BRV8 Suppressor of IKBKE 1 X-ray 2.30 2018-09-02 85.44 0.89 0.09 ok
6AKK_A Q9BRV8 Suppressor of IKBKE 1 X-ray 1.50 2018-09-02 85.44 0.90 0.09 ok
6IRA_A Q05586 Glutamate receptor ionotropic, NMDA 1 EM 4.50 2018-11-12 2.50 89.42 0.97 0.82 80.13 1.74 0.08 ok
6AKM_B Q14BN4 Sarcolemmal membrane-associated protein X-ray 2.30 2018-09-02 77.19 0.90 0.08 ok
6AKL_C Q13033 Striatin-3 X-ray 1.75 2018-09-02 100.00 novel 71.22 0.54 0.86 90.79 1.40 0.05 ok
6NCG_A Q86Y07 Serine/threonine-protein kinase VRK2 X-ray 2.45 2018-12-11 0.00 95.96 0.98 0.95 93.99 0.99 0.05 ok
6HM0_A Q9H8M2 Bromodomain-containing protein 9 X-ray 2.40 2018-09-11 62.97 0.93 0.04 ok
6MZW_A P11362 Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 X-ray 2.20 2018-11-05 0.40 86.99 0.96 0.90 92.55 1.76 0.04 ok
6MZQ_A P11362 Fibroblast growth factor receptor 1 X-ray 2.00 2018-11-05 0.00 87.47 0.97 0.91 93.77 1.60 0.04 ok
6MA7_A P08684 Cytochrome P450 3A4 X-ray 2.09 2018-08-26 92.38 0.97 0.03 ok
6MA6_A P08684 Cytochrome P450 3A4 X-ray 2.18 2018-08-26 92.38 0.97 0.03 ok
6MA8_A P08684 Cytochrome P450 3A4 X-ray 1.83 2018-08-26 92.38 0.97 0.02 ok
6I5H_A P49759 Dual specificity protein kinase CLK1 X-ray 1.49 2018-11-13 79.06 0.98 0.02 ok
6IBD_A Q92835 Phosphatidylinositol 3,4,5-trisphosphate 5 X-ray 1.48 2018-11-29 71.25 0.99 0.00 ok
6MT0_A P11309 Serine/threonine-protein kinase pim-1 X-ray 2.20 2018-10-18 89.44 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.