Hiring in life sciences? Share your open positions with our professional community. Read more Close

Advertisement

AFilter: Improved Antibody Epitope Prediction by Machine Learning-Optimized Interface Energy Filtering of AlphaFold3-Predicted Complex

Created on 19 Aug 2026

Authors

Liu, X., Wang, Y. Y.

Abstract

AlphaFold3 (AF3) predicts protein-complex structures from sequence with near-experimental accuracy on many targets, substantially lowering the cost of mechanistic and therapeutic discovery. However, application to antibody epitope prediction is hampered by an approximately 63% failure rate. Comparing successful and failed AF3 predictions across antibody-antigen and nanobody-antigen complexes, we found that failed predictions share a distinctive energetic signature: distorted CDR-loop geometries and elevated van der Waals strain at the interface. Building upon these observations, we developed a machine learning-based interface energy filtering framework, designated AFilter, capable of eliminating over 90% of erroneous predictions while retaining >90% of true positives. Compared with ipTM-based filtering, AFilter improved accuracy from 82.7% to 97.7% for nanobody-antigen complexes and from 79.4% to 96.3% for antibody-antigen complexes, while simultaneously raising the true positive rate from 69.8% to 96.4% and from 63.1% to 92.5%, respectively. When applied to NeuroMab antibodies of unknown structure, AFilter prioritized high-confidence epitope predictions that AF3 sampling alone could not reliably surface. As a lightweight post-hoc filter (<5% computational overhead) that requires no re-docking, AFilter is directly compatible with existing AF3 prediction pipelines and, in principle, transferable to other diffusion-based complex predictors, providing a practical quality-assurance layer for antibody epitope mapping in early-stage drug discovery.

Preprint server: bioRxiv
The authors list and abstract were imported from bioRxiv on 19 Aug 2026.

Advertisement

Stats

  • Community rating n/a 0 votes
  • Your rating

1-terrible, 9-excellent. How would you rate this preprint? Sign in in to submit your rating.

  • Recommendations n/a n/a positive of 0 vote(s)
  • Views 3
  • Comments 0

Recommended by

  • No recommendations yet.

Post a comment

You need to be signed in to post comments. You can sign in here.

Comments

There are no comments yet.

Advertisement