Understanding the revolutionary potential of AlphaFold3 in Biology 2024-05-18T00 Open Science

What is going on with AlphaFold3?

A revolution in the field of Protein Science?

On 8th May 2024, Google Deepmind and Isomorphic Labs introduced the world to their new tool for protein structure prediction, AlphaFold3, a more powerful version of the already existent AlphaFold2, with which Google Deepmind had already reconstructed more than 200 millions protein structures (almost every known protein) and crashed the a priori protein structure prediction challenge that had been chasing Bioinformaticians for decades (I talked about it in more detail here).

Are we on the verge of another revolution? Is AlphaFold3 really a game changer as its predecessor was? In this blog post, we'll explore the potential breakthroughs and new applications, as well as some limitations that the authors themselves recognized.

What's new?

If you read the abstract of the paper accepted by Nature and published, open-access, on their website, you will see some interesting news:

The introduction of AlphaFold 2 has spurred a revolution in modelling the structure of proteins and their interactions, enabling a huge range of applications in protein modelling and design. In this paper, we describe our AlphaFold 3 model with a substantially updated diffusion-based architecture, which is capable of joint structure prediction of complexes including proteins, nucleic acids, small molecules, ions, and modified residues. The new AlphaFold model demonstrates significantly improved accuracy over many previous specialised tools: far greater accuracy on protein-ligand interactions than state of the art docking tools, much higher accuracy on protein-nucleic acid interactions than nucleic-acid-specific predictors, and significantly higher antibody-antigen prediction accuracy than AlphaFold-Multimer v2.3. Together these results show that high accuracy modelling across biomolecular space is possible within a single unified deep learning framework.

Let's break this down, so that Biologists can understand AI concepts and AI Scientists can understand Biology ones:

0. Let's introduce some terminology

0a. For the Biologists

0b. For the AI Scientists

1. The diffusion architecture

For diffusion we mean that application of generative AI that is able to create images from a text prompt. The idea behind diffusion is perfectly suitable for the problem of protein structure prediction, as it is a text-based task: indeed, even though the 3D structure of a protein could seem completely unrelated to its 1D amino-acidic chain, there is actually a stronger link than anyone could think of. At the end of the day, indeed, all of the 3D interactions among amino-acids are already defined by their order in the primary chain.

The diffusion architecture in AlphaFold3 receives raw atom coordinates, meaning that, after the first prediction steps coming from a set of neural networks blocks (similar but not equal to those of AlphaFold2), the model is able to turn a "fuzzy" image, with lots of positional and stereochemical noise, to a well-defined and sharp structure. The big advantage of the diffusion model is that it is able to predict the local structure even if the upstream network is not sure about the correct amino-acidic coordinates: this is achieved thanks to the generative process, which is able to produce a distribution of answers that capture most of the possible variability in the protein structure.

As every generative model, also AlphaFold3 diffusion one is prone to hallucination: this is particularly true when it comes to unstructured regions of a protein (that lack a defined and stable tertiary structure), and the AlphaFold3 diffusion blocks are trained in such a way that, in those regions, they produce randomly coiled chains of amino-acids, as done by AlphaFold-Multimeter v2.3 (which generated the images used for hallucination correction training).

2. New tasks and better accuracy

As reported in the abstract, AlphaFold now outperforms task-specific softwares for:

Why are these three tasks so important to us?

What are the limitations?

As the authors of the paper reported, they are aware of three big limitations:

  1. Difficulties in predicting chirality: it is an intrinsic property of a molecule that deals with how the molecule rotates polarized light. Two molecules that differ for nothing but chirality are like your hands: they are perfectly similar, but you can't superpose them palm to back. Even though some chirality penalty has been introduced, the model still produces about 4% of chirality violating proteins.
  2. Clashing atoms: there is a tendency, especially with >100 nucleotides nucleic acids interacting with >2000 amino acids proteins, to overlap atoms in the same space region (which is not actually possible).
  3. Hallucinations, as discussed before, can still happen, so an intrinsic ranking system has been introduced to help the model trashing the hallucinated structures.
  4. There are still some tasks, such as Antigen-Antibody prediction, where AlphaFold3 can improve. The authors observed improvements when the diffusion models is given more seeds (up to 1000), i.e. a series of numbers that "instruct" the model on how to generate an image, whereas no substantial advancement with more stable diffusion samples.
  5. As for all protein-prediction models, proteins are predicted in their "static" form, and not "in action", when they are dynamically inserted into a living cell.

Conclusion and open questions

AlphaFold3 definitely represents a breakthrough in Protein Sciences: still, we are not at an arrival point.

This model marks the kick-off of the new generative AI approach to complex biological problems, which we also saw with OpenCRISPR: on one hand, this holds incredible potential but, on the other, the risk is that we are going to decrease the explainability of our models, leaving scientist with some auto-generated accuracy metrics that are not necessarily able to tell them why a protein has a certain structure.

Another really important topic is that AlphaFold3 is not completely open-source: there is an online-server provided by Google, but the code, as stated in the paper, is not given (except for some mock code that simulates the architecture). This poses a big ethical question: are we sure that we want a world were the access to advanced scientific tools is protected by strict licenses and not everyone can see what is actually going on in softwares by accessing their code?

And, more importantly now than ever, we must ask ourselves: are we really going to rely on non fully open-source AI to design our drugs, deliver targeted genome editing and cure diseases?

References