Structural Plausibility Without Binding Specificity: Limits of AI-Based Antibody-Antigen Structure Prediction Confidence Scores

preprint OA: closed CC-BY-4.0

Abstract

Antibody-antigen binding prediction remains a central challenge for AI-driven therapeutic discovery, particularly in discriminating cognate interactions from structurally plausible but incorrect pairings. We present a controlled, AI-method- and antibody-format-agnostic evaluation framework that measures binding specificity under realistic conditions. Using 106 experimentally determined single-chain antibody (nanobody)-antigen complexes and 11,342 shuffled non-cognate pairings, we benchmarked publicly-available state-of-the-art structure prediction methods (AlphaFold3, Boltz-2, Chai-1). Although the methods tested often generated geometrically plausible complexes, internal confidence metrics (ipTM) frequently failed to discriminate correct from incorrect pairings. Increased sampling improved structural refinement but not pairing discrimination, indicating that computational resources are better allocated across independent seeds and explicit negative controls. We conclude that internal confidence scores are not inherently calibrated to binding specificity and require validation against realistic decoys. To enable community benchmarking and method development, we release ∼1.8 million AI-generated complex structures and guidance for the benchmarks ahead.
Full text 1,592 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Antibody-antigen binding prediction remains a central challenge for AI-driven therapeutic discovery, particularly in discriminating cognate interactions from structurally plausible but incorrect pairings. We present a controlled, AI-method- and antibody-format-agnostic evaluation framework that measures binding specificity under realistic conditions. Using 106 experimentally determined single-chain antibody (nanobody)-antigen complexes and 11,342 shuffled non-cognate pairings, we benchmarked publicly-available state-of-the-art structure prediction methods (AlphaFold3, Boltz-2, Chai-1). Although the methods tested often generated geometrically plausible complexes, internal confidence metrics (ipTM) frequently failed to discriminate correct from incorrect pairings. Increased sampling improved structural refinement but not pairing discrimination, indicating that computational resources are better allocated across independent seeds and explicit negative controls. We conclude that internal confidence scores are not inherently calibrated to binding specificity and require validation against realistic decoys. To enable community benchmarking and method development, we release ∼1.8 million AI-generated complex structures and guidance for the benchmarks ahead. Competing Interest Statement V.G. declares advisory board positions in aiNET GmbH, Enpicom B.V, Absci, Omniscope, and Diagonal Therapeutics. V.G. is a consultant for Adaptyv Biosystems, Specifica Inc, Roche/Genentech, immunai, Proteinea, LabGenius, and FairJourney Biologics. V.G. is an employee of Imprint LLC.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00
unpaywall
last seen: 2026-05-22T02:00:06.705733+00:00
License: CC-BY-4.0