Computing protein structure from amino acid sequence information has been a long-standing grand challenge. CASP (Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction) conducts community experiments aimed at advancing solutions to this and related problems. Experiments are conducted every two years. The 2020 experiment (CASP14) saw major progress, with the second generation of deep learning methods delivering accuracy comparable with experiment for many single proteins. There is an expectation that these methods will have much wider application in computational structural biology. Here we summarize results from the most recent experiment, CASP15, in 2022, with an emphasis on new deep learning-driven progress. Other papers in this special issue of Proteins provide more detailed analysis. For single protein structures, the AlphaFold2 deep learning method is still superior to other approaches, but there are two points of note. First, although AlphaFold2 was the core of all the most successful methods, there was a wide variety of implementation and combination with other methods. Second, using the standard AlphaFold2 protocol and default parameters only produces the highest quality result for about two thirds of the targets, and more extensive sampling is required for the others. The major advance in this CASP is the enormous increase in the accuracy of computed protein complexes, achieved by the use of deep learning methods, although overall these do not fully match the performance for single proteins. Here too, AlphaFold2 based method perform best, and again more extensive sampling than the defaults is often required. Also of note are the encouraging early results on the use of deep learning to compute ensembles of macromolecular structures. Critically for the usability of computed structures, for both single proteins and protein complexes, deep learning derived estimates of both local and global accuracy are of high quality, however the estimates in interface regions are slightly less reliable. CASP15 also included computation of RNA structures for the first time. Here, the classical approaches produced better agreement with experiment than the new deep learning ones, and accuracy is limited. Also, for the first time, CASP included the computation of protein-ligand complexes, an area of special interest for drug design. Here too, classical methods were still superior to deep learning ones. Many new approaches were discussed at the CASP conference, and it is clear methods will continue to advance.

Prediction categories in the Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) experiments change with the need to address specific problems in structure modeling. In CASP15, four new prediction categories were introduced: RNA structure, ligand-protein complexes, accuracy of oligomeric structures and their interfaces, and ensembles of alternative conformations. This paper lists technical specifications for these categories and describes their integration in the CASP data management system.

NMR studies can provide unique information about protein conformations in solution. In CASP14, three reference structures provided by solution NMR methods were available (T1027, T1029, and T1055), as well as a fourth data set of NMR-derived contacts for a integral membrane protein (T1088). For the three targets with NMR-based structures, the best prediction results ranged from very good (GDT_TS = 0.90, for T1055) to poor (GDT_TS = 0.47, for T1029). We explored the basis of these results by comparing all CASP14 prediction models against experimental NMR data. For T1027, the NMR data reveal extensive internal dynamics, presenting a unique challenge for protein structure prediction. The analysis of T1029 motivated exploration of a novel method of “inverse structure determination”, in which an AF2 model was used to guide NMR data analysis. NMR data provided to CASP predictor groups for target T1088, a 238-residue integral membrane porin, was also used to assess several NMR-assisted prediction methods. Most groups involved in this exercise generated similar beta-barrel models, with good agreement with the experimental data. However, as was also observed in CASP13, some pure prediction groups that did not use the NMR data generated structures for T1088 that better fit the NMR data than the models generated using these experimental data. These results demonstrate the remarkable power of modern methods to predict structures of proteins with accuracies rivaling solution NMR structures, and that it is now possible to reliably use prediction models to guide and complement experimental NMR data analysis.