Functional relevance of CASP16 nucleic acid predictions as evaluated by structure providers
Rachael C. KretschiD, Reinhard Albrecht, Ebbe Sloth AnderseniD, Hsuan‐Ai CheniD, Wah ChiuiD, Rhiju DasiD, Jeanine GezelleiD, Marcus D. HartmanniD, Claudia HöbartneriD, Yimin HuiD, Shekhar JadhaviD, Philip E. JohnsoniD, Christopher P. JonesiD, Deepak KoiralaiD, Emil L. KristofferseniD, Eric LargyiD, Anna LewickaiD, Cameron D. MackerethiD, Marco MarciaiD, Michela NigroiD, Manju OjhaiD, Joseph A. PiccirilliiD, Phoebe A. RiceiD, Heewhan ShiniD, Anna‐Lena SteckelbergiD, , Andriy KryshtafovychiD
Abstract
Accurate biomolecular structure prediction enables the prediction of mutational effects, the speculation of function based on predicted structural homology, the analysis of ligand binding modes, experimental model building and many other applications. Such algorithms to predict essential functional and structural features remain out of reach for biomolecular. Here, we report quantitative and qualitative evaluation of nucleic acid structures for the CASP16 blind prediction challenge by 12 of the experimental groups who provided nucleic acid targets. Blind predictions accurately model secondary structure and some aspects of tertiary structure, including reasonable global folds for some complex RNAs, however, predictions often lack accuracy in the regions of highest functional importance. All models have inaccuracies in non-canonical regions where, e.g., the nucleic-acid backbone bends or a base forms a non-standard hydrogen bond. These bends and non-canonical interactions are integral to form functionally important regions such as RNA enzymatic active sites. Additionally, the modeling of conserved and functional interfaces between nucleic acids and ligands, proteins, or other nucleic acids remains poor. For some targets, the experimental structures may not represent the only structure the biomolecular complex occupies in solution or in its functional life-cycle, posing a future challenge for the community.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 23
- FWCI
- 6.87
- Field percentile
- top 2%
- Organism
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
In-depth summary
Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 8 Nov 2026 · from the full text of version 1 (18 Apr 2025) · CC BY 4.0
Structure providers for 18 CASP16 nucleic acid targets find blind predictions capture secondary structure but miss non-canonical interactions, backbone kinks, ligand sites, and intermolecular interfaces.
Computational nucleic acid structure prediction trails protein prediction, and aggregate CASP scores can mask errors in the regions experimentalists consider functionally decisive. Providers of 18 CASP16 targets compare predictions with their own structures to find which features current methods miss: junction geometry, active sites, ligand pockets, intermolecular interfaces and modified nucleotides.
Key results
ShownPredictions recovered helices and much of the secondary structure but relied on canonical A-form geometry, missing sharp backbone bends and non-canonical pairs. For the xrRNA, most high-scoring models passed the 3′ end through a closed ring, forming an implausible knot.
xrRNA R1205 (2.9 Å crystal): lowest RMSD 7.46 Å (RNApolis TS063_4) but a 6-bp instead of 9-bp pseudoknot; Vfold TS481_3, best by most CASP metrics (GDT-TS 0.43, LDDT 0.499), formed a knot, as did AlphaFold3, GromihaLab, KiharaLab and GuangzhouRNA models; no model reproduced the cis A-minor contacts. · 2.1 Exoribonuclease-resistant viral RNA (CASP…; 3 Conclusions
ShownFunctionally decisive contacts were missed even when the global fold was right. Most group IIC intron models with an accurate fold lacked the D2-D6 tertiary contacts, and no SAMURI ribozyme model reproduced the active site or the SAH binding mode.
Group IIC intron R1241: of 180 models, 105 had RMSD <2 Å, yet 101 of these missed the η-η’ and π-π’ contacts; only 4 (three Vfold, one GeneSilico) recovered them. SAMURI R1288: LDDT 0-0.16 for all models; no model exceeded 4 out of 10 manual points; molecular replacement failed (best translation function Z-score 7). · 2.5 SAM utilizing alkyltransferase ribozyme…; 2.7 Oceanobacillus iheyensis Group IIC intron…; 3 Conclusions
ShownFor HIV-1 RRE stem-loop II, individual subdomains were modeled closely but their relative orientation at the three-way junction was poor for the wild type and better for the G34U mutant, whose simpler junction the providers suggest eased prediction.
Top-five global RMSDs were 7.8 to 9.4 Å for SLII R1209 (213 models) vs 3.08 to 8.23 Å for SLIIG34U R1296 (230 models); Vfold R1296TS481_3 reached 3.08 Å. Subdomain RMSDs for the R1209 top five: IIa 0.856 ± 0.213 Å, IIb 2.899 ± 0.284 Å, IIc 0.786 ± 0.230 Å. · 2.2 HIV-1 rev response element stem-loop II…; 3 Conclusions
ShownLigand-dependent conformations and ligand contacts were poorly modeled. Riboswitch ligand pockets with a template were acceptable, but models missed a nucleotide shift caused by a bulkier ligand and the unusual fold of a dopamine-bound DNA aptamer.
ZTP riboswitch: 72% and 77% of models had TM-score >0.45 for R1261/R1262, but only 4 (1.8%) and 1 (0.5%) exceeded 0.70; no group exceeded local lDDT 0.70 for C52 in R1264. DNA aptamer D1273 (27 nucleotides): 107 models from 22 groups, RMSD 10.16 to 27.79 Å; dopamine stacking was partly recovered, hydrogen bonds were not. · 2.4 ZTP riboswitches bound to synthetic and…; 2.6 Dopamine-bound DNA aptamer RKEC1 (CASP…; 3 Conclusions
ShownIntermolecular interfaces were mostly mispredicted. Across RNA dimers, an aptamer-protein complex and protein-DNA complexes, models often placed the partner in the wrong region or missed the specific contacts; none of the leading CbUDE models captured the arginine intercalating into ssDNA.
OLE dimer R1285o: at most one of three interfaces per model; 20 models got the kissing-loop B3, 6 a B2-like contact, none the B1 A-A pairs. 2′ FY aptamer M1282: 36 % bound the correct top of the RBD, 56 % the back. SPβ M1239: 35 of 41 models had the tetrameric core, but none matched the CC-motif angle. · 2.9 Ornate Large Extremophilic (OLE) RNA Dimer…; 2’ FY RNA aptamer / protein complex (M1282); 2.11 Cryo-EM structure of SPβ LSI-RDF synaptic…; 2.12 Cryptic DNA-binding protein UDE from…
Methods, data and reproducibility
12 structure-provider groups scored CASP16 blind predictions against their own X-ray, cryo-EM or NMR structures. They combined CASP metrics (RMSD, GDT-TS, lDDT, TM-score, INF, ICS, QS score) with manual, target-specific checks of junctions, non-canonical pairs, ligand pockets and interfaces, plus molecular replacement trials for SAMURI.
- CASP16 nucleic acid target set (37 RNA, 1 DNA, 11 RNA-multimer, 16 NA-protein, 6 NA-ligand) from 22 provider groups; a subset is evaluated here · n = 18 targets in 12 sections
- Plant-virus xrRNA crystal structure in the nuclease-resistant pseudoknot state, 2.9 Å (R1205) · ST9a virus (plant-infecting) · n = 59-nt crystallization construct · PDB 9CFN
- HIV-1 RRE stem-loop II (Fab-assisted crystal structure, 2.42 Å) and its G34U mutant (crystal structure, 3.0 Å) (R1209, R1296) · HIV-1 · n = 213 and 230 predicted models · PDB 9C2K; PDB 9C75
- ZTP riboswitch co-crystal structures with ZMP, AICA and two synthetic ligands (R1261-R1264) · Clostridium beijerinckii; Schaalia odontolytica · PDB 9BZC; 9BZ1; 8VQV; 8VVJ
- Synthetic SAMURI alkyltransferase ribozyme (post-catalytic, m3A and SAH; R1288) and NMR structure of the dopamine-bound DNA aptamer RKEC1 (D1273) · n = 107 aptamer models from 22 groups · PDB 9FN2; PDB 9HIO
- Group IIC intron D1-D6 cryo-EM structure, 3.3-4.1 Å (3.8 Å average) (R1241) · Oceanobacillus iheyensis · n = 180 models from 36 groups
- ROOL RNA monomer and oligomer cryo-EM structures (R1283v1-v3, R1286) and OLE RNA 5′-domain dimer at 2.9 Å (R1285o) · E. faecalis, L. salivarius (ROOL); H. halodurans (OLE) · PDB 9ISV; 9J3R; 9J3T; 9J6Y; 9MCW
- NA-protein and modified-RNA targets: TPAV 3′ CITE-Fab, 2′ FY aptamer with SARS-CoV-2 RBD, 2′ FY origami dimer, SPβ LSI-RDF-DNA synapse, CbUDE-ssDNA · TPAV; SARS-CoV-2; phage SPβ; Cerapachys biroi · n = 31 (M1282), 95 (R1281o), 41 (M1239) models · PDB 9DXD (SPβ)
- Methods & tools
- AlphaFold 3 (AF3-server), Vfold, RNApolis, GeneSilico, Phenix (molecular replacement), PyMOL, ChimeraX, VARNA, rna_motif, CASP metrics: RMSD, GDT-TS, lDDT, TM-score, INF, QS, ICS/IPS, X-ray crystallography (incl. Fab-assisted), Cryo-EM and NMR spectroscopy
- Data & accessions
- https://predictioncenter.org/casp16/results.cgi?tr_type=rnahttps://predictioncenter.org/casp16/results.cgi?tr_type=rna_multihttps://predictioncenter.org/casp16/results.cgi?tr_type=hybridhttps://predictioncenter.org/download_area/CASP16/predictions/RNA/https://predictioncenter.org/download_area/CASP16/predictions/oligo/https://predictioncenter.org/download_area/CASP16/predictions/hybrid/
- Reproducibility gaps
- No analysis code is provided. Some targets (group IIC intron, 2′ FY origami and aptamer, CbUDE-ssDNA) are described without PDB IDs, and the UDE providers state their experimental structures were not yet released.
Limitations (6)
- Each experimental structure shows one state under particular conditions. Providers note that deviating models (e.g., RRE SLII, SPβ synaptic complex) might represent other solution or catalytic-cycle states, and that SLII crystal contacts may stabilize one specific fold. · stated by the authors
- The FASTA-based CASP target format cannot encode modified nucleotides, so the 2′ FY origami and aptamer were predicted as unmodified RNA. This confounds comparison with structures whose fold and binding depend on the modification. · stated by the authors
- Official CASP metrics can hide functionally important errors: for SAMURI, LDDT and RMSD rankings disagreed with the manual assessment, and global scores did not flag the missed D2-D6 contacts in the group IIC intron. · stated by the authors
- Some reference data are coarse: the 2′ FY origami map reached only about 10 Å, and OLE interface B3 was low resolution and therefore excluded from the official CASP16 assessment. · stated by the authors
- Each provider used its own criteria (manual point schemes, class assignments, chosen interactions), so findings are qualitative and hard to compare across targets. Providers also judged predictions of their own structures without independent assessors. · noted in this summary
- Explanations for success, such as AF3's ROOL monomer fold coming from MSA covariation or Vfold's intron D2-D6 contacts coming from homologous templates, are untested hypotheses with no ablation analyses. · noted in this summary
Who should read:Read this if you develop or benchmark RNA/DNA structure predictors and want target-level evidence of which functional features (junctions, active sites, ligand pockets, interfaces) current models get wrong.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Assessment of Nucleic Acid Structure Prediction in CASP16
Rachael C. Kretsch, Alissa M. Hummer, … Rhiju Das·Proteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Oct 30, 2025
- Hierarchical Breakdown of RNA Structure Prediction in CASP16: From Reliable Local Helices to Speculative Multimer Assembly
Chandran Nithin, Smita P. Pilla, Sebastian Kmiecik·bioRxiv·Sep 4, 2026
- Assessment of three-dimensional RNA structure prediction in CASP15
R. Das, R. C. Kretsch, … E. Westhof·bioRxiv·Apr 25, 2023
- NUMonomer enables accurate and scalable nucleic acid structure prediction from primary sequence alone
Yunda Si, Zhang Sh, Luonan Chen·bioRxiv·Jul 20, 2026
- Modeling Alternative Conformational States in CASP16
Namita Dube, Theresa A. Ramelot, … Gaetano Thomas Montelione·Proteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Oct 28, 2025
- CASP16 protein monomer structure prediction assessment
Rongqing Yuan, Jing Zhang, … Nick V. Grishin·Proteins Structure Function and BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Aug 17, 2025