Equilibrium fluctuations and triggered conformational changes often underlie the functional cycles of membrane proteins. For example, transporters mediate the passage of molecules across cell membranes by alternating between inward-facing (IF) and outward-facing (OF) states, while receptors undergo intracellular structural rearrangements that initiate signaling cascades. Although the conformational plasticity of these proteins has historically posed a challenge for traditional de novo protein structure prediction pipelines, the recent success of AlphaFold2 (AF2) in CASP14 culminated in the modeling of a transporter in multiple conformations to high accuracy. Given that AF2 was designed to predict static structures of proteins, it remains unclear if this result represents an underexplored capability to accurately predict multiple conformations and/or structural heterogeneity. Here, we present an approach to drive AF2 to sample alternative conformations of topologically diverse transporters and G-protein coupled receptors (GPCRs) that are absent from the AF2 training set. Whereas models of most proteins generated using the default AF2 pipeline are conformationally homogeneous and nearly identical to one another, reducing the depth of the input multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) by stochastic subsampling led to the generation of accurate models in multiple conformations. In our benchmark, these conformations spanned the range between two experimental structures of interest, with models at the extremes of these conformational distributions observed to be among the most accurate (average template modeling (TM)-score of 0.94). These results suggest a straightforward approach to identifying native-like alternative states, while also highlighting the need for the next generation of deep learning algorithms to be designed to predict ensembles of biophysically relevant states.

CASP13 has investigated the impact of sparse NMR data on the accuracy of protein structure prediction. NOESY and 15N‐1H residual dipolar coupling data, typical of that obtained for 15N,13C‐enriched, perdeuterated proteins up to about 40 kDa, were simulated for 11 CASP13 targets ranging in size from 80 to 326 residues. For several targets, two prediction groups generated models that are more accurate than those produced using baseline methods. Real NMR data collected for a de novo designed protein were also provided to predictors, including one data set in which only backbone resonance assignments were available. Some NMR‐assisted prediction groups also did very well with these data. CASP13 also assessed whether incorporation of sparse NMR data improves the accuracy of protein structure prediction relative to nonassisted regular methods. In most cases, incorporation of sparse, noisy NMR data results in models with higher accuracy. The best NMR‐assisted models were also compared with the best regular predictions of any CASP13 group for the same target. For six of 13 targets, the most accurate model provided by any NMR‐assisted prediction group was more accurate than the most accurate model provided by any regular prediction group; however, for the remaining seven targets, one or more regular prediction method provided a more accurate model than even the best NMR‐assisted model. These results suggest a novel approach for protein structure determination, in which advanced prediction methods are first used to generate structural models, and sparse NMR data is then used to validate and/or refine these models.

No abstract