Accurate protein structure prediction is fundamental to structural biology because protein structure underlies molecular function and provides a basis for mechanistic interpretation. Recent advances in deep learning have transformed the field from multiple sequence alignment (MSA)-driven monomer folding into broader frameworks capable of modeling protein complexes and increasingly heterogeneous molecular systems. Existing reviews have summarized this progress from the perspectives of representative models, application domains, and protein design. Building on these efforts, this review focuses on the methodological evolution of the field itself. It examines recent developments through three closely related dimensions: representations and data, architectures and learning strategies, and confidence and evaluation. Within this perspective, the field is organized into four methodological phases and three cross-cutting transitions: from explicit evolutionary coupling features and early contact prediction to learned sequence representations in AlphaFold2, RoseTTAFold, and ESMFold; from protein-only monomer folding to increasingly integrated modeling of heterogeneous molecular systems in AlphaFold-Multimer, RoseTTAFoldNA, and AlphaFold3; and, more recently, from prediction-oriented structure inference to design-oriented generative modeling in RFdiffusion and related frameworks. This framework provides a clearer understanding of how methodological shifts have shaped the capabilities, limitations, and practical roles of recent models.
Piotr Jedryszek, Tongmeng Xie, Adam Winnifrith +5q-bio.QM cs.LG
AlphaFold3-class structure predictors pair a representational trunk, which processes sequence and context, with a diffusion module, which generates atomic coordinates. How biological information changes as it crosses this architectural boundary remains poorly understood. We analyze per-residue activations from the Pairformer trunk and diffusion module of Boltz-1 using linear probes, sparse autoencoders (SAEs), and causal interventions. From the trunk, both geometry (secondary structure, disorder) and sequence chemistry (amino-acid identity, signal peptides, disulfide-bond annotations) are linearly decodable. In the diffusion module, the two diverge. Secondary structure transfers essentially unchanged, whereas sequence chemistry is strongly attenuated. We then test whether decodable directions can steer the model, intervening on the final trunk single representation that conditions the diffusion module. Helix and coil directions change predicted structure dose-dependently against matched-norm random controls, but a beta-strand direction that is highly predictive (F1 =0.82) produces no measurable increase in strand content: linear decodability does not imply causal influence at the site we tested. The same probes also score markedly lower against sparse SwissProt annotations than against dense DSSP labels, because unannotated residues that the model gets right are charged as false positives; such scores are therefore lower bounds. Finally, supervised probes outscore single SAE features wherever a label already exists. We release the trained trunk and diffusion SAEs, Boltz-1 per-residue activations, and the analysis code.