These threads are always the same: lots of comments about protein folding, how amazing DeepMind is, how AlphaFold is a success story, how it has flipped an entire field on it's head, etc. The language from Google is so deceptive about what they've actually done, I think it's actually intentionally disingenuous.
At the end of the day, AlphaFold is amazing homology modeling. I love it, I think it's an awesome application of machine learning, and I use it frequently. But it's doing the same thing we've been doing for 2 decades: pattern matching sequences of proteins with unknown structure to sequences of proteins with known structure, and about 2x as well as we used to be able to.
That's extremely useful, but it's not knowledge of protein folding. It can't predict a fold de novo, it can't predict folds that haven't been seen (EDIT: this is maybe not strictly true, depending on how you slice it), it fails in a number of edge cases (remember, in biology, edge cases are everything) and again, I can't stress this enough, we have no new information on how proteins fold. We know all the information (most of at least) for a proteins final fold is in the sequence. But we don't know much about the in-between.
I like AlphaFold, it's convenient and I use it (although for anything serious or anything interacting with anything else, I still need a real structure), but I feel as though it has been intentionally and deceptively oversold. There are 3-4 other deep learning projects I think have had a much greater impact on my field.
EDIT: See below: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32265662 for information on predicting new folds.
This is not the first (or even tenth) time I’m seeing an academic trying to undermine genuine progress almost to the level of gaslighting. Comparing alphafold to conventional homology modeling is disingenuous at its most charitable interpretation.
Not sure what else to say. Structural biology has always been the weirdest field I’ve seen, the way students are abused (crystallize and publish in nature or go bust), and how every nature issue will have three structure papers as if that cures cancer every day. I suppose it warps one’s perception of outsiders after being in such a bubble?
signed, someone with a PhD in biomedical engineering, did a ton of bio work.
Not sure what part of "it does homology modeling 2x better" you didn't see in my comment? AlphaFold scored something like 85% in CASP in 2020, in CASP 2016, I-TASSER had I think 42%? So it's ~2x as good as I-TASSER which is exactly what I said in my comment.
>This is not the first (or even tenth) time I’m seeing an academic trying to undermine genuine progress almost to the level of gaslighting. Comparing alphafold to conventional homology modeling is disingenuous at its most charitable interpretation.
It literally is homology modeling. The deep learning aspect is to boost otherwise unnoticed signal that most homology modeling software couldn't tease out. Also, I don't think I'm gaslighting, but maybe I'm wrong? If anything, I felt gaslit by the language around AlphaFold.
>Not sure what else to say. Structural biology has always been the weirdest field I’ve seen, the way students are abused (crystallize and publish in nature or go bust), and how every nature issue will have three structure papers as if that cures cancer every day. I suppose it warps one’s perception of outsiders after being in such a bubble?
What on earth are you even talking about? The vast, VAST majority of structures go unpublished ENTIRELY, let alone published in nature. There are almost 200,000 structures on deposit in the PDB.
Wait, stop, I don't know anything about proteins but 84% success is not ~2x better than 42%.
It doesn't really make sense to talk about 2x better in terms of success percentages, but if you want a feel, I would measure 1/error instead (a 99% correct system is 10 times better than a 90% correct system), making AlphaFold around 3.6 times better.