Intrinsically Disordered Proteins: Computational Challenges

Abstract

Intrinsically disordered proteins (IDPs) and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) represent a significant departure from the classical structure-function paradigm in molecular biology. These proteins lack stable tertiary structure under physiological conditions yet perform critical biological functions including signaling, regulation, and phase separation. The computational study of IDPs presents unique challenges that distinguish them from globular proteins. This review examines the current computational landscape for IDP research, focusing on conformational ensemble generation, force field accuracy, machine learning prediction, and the integration of experimental data. The veterinary relevance of IDPs is considered through comparative analysis of host-pathogen interactions and cellular stress responses.

1. Introduction

Intrinsically disordered proteins occupy a conformational space that is fundamentally different from that of folded globular proteins. Rather than populating a single low-energy minimum, IDPs exist as dynamic ensembles of rapidly interconverting conformations. This structural plasticity enables IDPs to participate in diverse molecular interactions, including molecular recognition, post-translational modification, and liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) [1, 74]. The computational characterization of these systems requires methods that can capture conformational heterogeneity, transient secondary structure, and context-dependent folding.

The veterinary significance of IDPs extends across multiple domains. Viral proteins frequently contain IDRs that facilitate host cell entry, immune evasion, and genome replication. For example, the nucleoproteins of highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses contain disordered regions that modulate polymerase activity and host adaptation. Similarly, bacterial effector proteins secreted by pathogens such as Pasteurella multocida (the etiologic agent of fowl cholera) often employ IDRs for translocation and host protein interaction. Understanding IDP biology at the computational level therefore has direct implications for veterinary diagnostics, vaccine design, and therapeutic development.

2. Conformational Ensemble Generation

2.1 The Ensemble Paradigm

The central computational challenge in IDP research is the generation and validation of conformational ensembles that accurately represent the Boltzmann-weighted distribution of states populated by the protein [2, 3]. Unlike folded proteins where a single static structure may suffice for functional interpretation, IDPs require ensemble representations that capture the full range of accessible conformations. This paradigm shift necessitates different computational strategies and validation metrics.

2.2 Sampling Methods

Molecular dynamics (MD) simulations remain a primary tool for generating IDP ensembles. However, the rugged energy landscape of disordered proteins requires extensive sampling to achieve convergence. Conventional MD simulations often struggle to adequately sample the conformational space of IDPs due to the high energy barriers between distinct conformational states and the long timescales required for equilibration [4].

Enhanced sampling techniques have been developed to address these limitations. Replica exchange molecular dynamics (REMD) and its variants, including temperature replica exchange and Hamiltonian replica exchange, improve sampling by allowing simulations to escape local minima. Supervised molecular dynamics approaches have been applied to uncover recognition mechanisms in arginine-glycine-glycine (RGG) motif-mediated RNA-IDR interactions [5]. These methods combine experimental restraints with MD simulations to guide sampling toward biologically relevant conformations.

Machine learning-based enhanced sampling workflows represent a recent advance in the field. Zhu et al. demonstrated a machine learning-driven approach for targeting the intrinsically disordered androgen receptor N-terminal domain (AR-NTD), combining deep learning with enhanced sampling to explore the conformational landscape of this challenging system [6]. Such approaches leverage the pattern recognition capabilities of neural networks to identify collective variables that capture the essential physics of IDP dynamics.

2.3 Coarse-Grained and Multiscale Approaches

All-atom simulations of IDPs remain computationally expensive, particularly for systems larger than 100 residues or for timescales exceeding microseconds. Coarse-grained (CG) models reduce computational cost by grouping atoms into interaction sites, enabling simulations of larger systems and longer timescales. The integration of NMR restraints into CG simulations has emerged as a powerful strategy for generating accurate conformational ensembles of complex protein systems [7]. This hybrid approach combines the efficiency of CG models with the experimental accuracy of NMR-derived distance and orientation restraints.

Multiscale modeling frameworks that bridge atomistic and coarse-grained representations offer a path forward for studying IDP systems at biologically relevant scales. These methods allow researchers to capture both local conformational preferences and global chain properties within a single computational framework.

3. Force Field Limitations and Development

3.1 Accuracy of Current Force Fields

Molecular mechanics force fields were historically parameterized against folded proteins and may not accurately capture the conformational preferences of disordered states. Early force fields tended to overstabilize helical structure and underestimate the population of extended conformations in IDPs [4]. This bias toward compact, structured states leads to ensembles that are insufficiently expanded compared to experimental measurements.

Recent force field developments have addressed these limitations through reparameterization of backbone torsion potentials, adjustment of water model parameters, and inclusion of electronic polarization effects. The CHARMM36m and Amber ff99SB-ILDN force fields, when combined with optimized water models such as TIP4P-D, show improved agreement with experimental data for IDP systems. However, no single force field performs optimally across all IDP sequences, and force field selection remains a critical consideration in computational IDP studies.

3.2 Validation Against Experimental Data

The validation of computational ensembles requires comparison with experimental observables. Small-angle X-ray scattering (SAXS) provides information about the overall size and shape of IDPs, measured through the radius of gyration (Rg) and pair distance distribution function. The use of biomolecular emulators for characterizing flexible proteins by SAXS has been proposed as a method to bridge computational models and experimental data [8]. These emulators generate synthetic SAXS profiles from conformational ensembles, enabling direct comparison with experimental scattering data.

Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) spectroscopy offers residue-level resolution for IDP characterization. Chemical shifts, residual dipolar couplings (RDCs), and paramagnetic relaxation enhancement (PRE) data provide constraints on local structure and long-range contacts. Cross-correlated NMR spin relaxation measurements can reveal local structure propensities in disordered proteins [72]. The integration of these diverse experimental restraints into ensemble refinement protocols remains an active area of methodological development.

4. Machine Learning and Deep Learning Approaches

4.1 Disorder Prediction from Sequence

The prediction of intrinsic disorder from amino acid sequence has been a longstanding goal in bioinformatics. Early predictors relied on physicochemical properties such as hydrophobicity, charge, and sequence complexity. Modern approaches leverage deep learning architectures, including convolutional neural networks (CNNs), recurrent neural networks (RNNs), and transformer-based models.

Protein language models (pLMs) have revolutionized disorder prediction by capturing evolutionary and biophysical information encoded in large sequence databases. The ESMDisPred architecture combines structure-aware CNNs with transformer models for intrinsically disordered protein prediction [9]. This approach leverages the ESM (Evolutionary Scale Modeling) family of pLMs to generate sequence embeddings that capture long-range dependencies relevant to disorder propensity.

The Critical Assessment of Protein Intrinsic Disorder (CAID) experiments provide systematic benchmarks for evaluating prediction methods. The third round of CAID (CAID-3) assessed disorder prediction in the era of protein language models, revealing significant improvements in prediction accuracy compared to earlier methods [51]. However, challenges remain in predicting disorder for sequences with low sequence similarity to training data and for IDRs that undergo coupled folding and binding.

4.2 Binding Site and Interaction Prediction

Intrinsically disordered regions frequently mediate protein-protein interactions through molecular recognition features (MoRFs) and short linear motifs (SLiMs). These interaction sites undergo disorder-to-order transitions upon binding, presenting unique challenges for prediction. The IDBSpred predictor uses machine learning and protein language models to identify intrinsically disordered binding sites [10]. This approach integrates sequence-derived features with pLM embeddings to achieve state-of-the-art performance in binding site prediction.

Contact map prediction for IDRs has been addressed by methods such as Disobind, which provides sequence-based, partner-dependent contact maps and interface residue predictions for intrinsically disordered regions [11]. These predictions are essential for modeling IDP complexes and understanding the structural basis of IDP-mediated interactions.

4.3 Phase Separation Prediction

Liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) is a phenomenon whereby proteins and nucleic acids form concentrated liquid-like droplets that serve as membrane-less organelles. IDPs are major drivers of LLPS, and the prediction of phase separation propensity from sequence has become an active area of research [1, 12].

The PICNIC method accurately predicts condensate-forming proteins regardless of their structural disorder across organisms [82]. This approach demonstrates that sequence features beyond simple disorder propensity contribute to phase separation behavior. The prediction of phase-separation propensities of disordered proteins from sequence has been further advanced by methods that incorporate physicochemical properties, sequence composition, and predicted conformational preferences [68].

5. Integrative Structural Modeling

5.1 Combining Experimental and Computational Data

Integrative structural modeling combines information from multiple experimental techniques with computational sampling to generate accurate conformational ensembles. This approach is particularly valuable for IDPs, where no single experimental method provides complete structural information. The integration of NMR restraints, SAXS profiles, and single-molecule Förster resonance energy transfer (smFRET) data into computational workflows has enabled the generation of atomic-resolution ensembles for challenging IDP systems [13].

The development of unified frameworks for determining conformational ensembles of disordered proteins represents a major advance in the field [14]. These frameworks provide standardized protocols for data integration, ensemble refinement, and validation, enabling reproducible and comparable results across different laboratories and systems.

5.2 Modeling IDP Complexes

The structural characterization of IDP complexes, including fuzzy complexes where the IDR remains partially disordered in the bound state, presents additional computational challenges. The refinement of AlphaFold2-modeled fuzzy protein complex structures using πDMD simulation has been explored as a strategy for improving model accuracy [57]. This approach combines deep learning-based structure prediction with physics-based refinement to capture the conformational heterogeneity of IDP complexes.

The design of binders for intrinsically disordered proteins represents a frontier in computational protein engineering [15, 54]. Unlike traditional drug design targeting well-defined binding pockets, IDP binder design must account for conformational plasticity and the absence of pre-formed binding sites. Computational strategies for IDP binder design include the identification of cryptic binding sites, the design of conformationally selective binders, and the engineering of proteins that stabilize specific IDP conformations.

6. Computational Design of IDPs

6.1 Sequence-Ensemble-Function Relationships

The computational design of intrinsically disordered proteins requires understanding the relationship between amino acid sequence, conformational ensemble, and biological function [16, 17]. This sequence-ensemble-function paradigm differs fundamentally from the sequence-structure-function paradigm of folded proteins. Krueger et al. developed a generalized framework for designing sequence-ensemble-function relationships in IDPs, enabling the rational engineering of disordered proteins with desired biophysical properties [17].

6.2 Phase-Separating Protein Design

The engineering of artificial phase-separating proteins has emerged as a powerful approach for studying the principles of LLPS and for developing biomaterials with programmable properties [18]. Computational design strategies for phase-separating proteins include the modulation of sequence composition, the introduction of specific interaction motifs, and the tuning of multivalent interactions. These approaches enable the creation of synthetic condensates with controlled material properties and biological functions.

7. Challenges in Drug Discovery

7.1 Targeting Disordered Proteins

The development of small-molecule drugs targeting IDPs remains a major challenge in pharmaceutical research [19, 60]. The absence of stable binding pockets, the conformational heterogeneity of IDPs, and the difficulty of characterizing drug-IDP interactions contribute to the lack of clinically approved drugs targeting disordered proteins. Computational approaches for IDP drug discovery include the identification of transient binding pockets, the design of covalent inhibitors that trap specific conformations, and the development of molecules that modulate IDP phase separation [20].

7.2 Binding Free Energy Calculations

The calculation of binding free energies for IDP-ligand interactions is complicated by the conformational entropy of the disordered state and the coupled folding-binding process. The MnM-W-MMGBSA strategy has been developed to improve relative binding free energy calculations for protein-protein interaction systems involving IDPs [21]. This approach accounts for the conformational flexibility of both binding partners and provides improved correlation with experimental binding affinities.

8. Veterinary Applications and Comparative Biology

8.1 Host-Pathogen Interactions

Intrinsically disordered regions play critical roles in host-pathogen interactions across veterinary species. Viral proteins, including those of avian influenza viruses, coronaviruses, and adenoviruses, frequently contain IDRs that facilitate host cell entry, immune evasion, and genome replication. The computational characterization of these IDRs can inform the development of antiviral strategies and vaccine design.

Bacterial pathogens of veterinary importance, including Pasteurella multocida, Escherichia coli, and Mycobacterium avium subsp. avium, employ IDR-containing effector proteins for host manipulation. The prediction and characterization of these effectors using computational methods can identify novel virulence factors and potential therapeutic targets.

8.2 Stress Response and Adaptation

Intrinsically disordered proteins are enriched in stress response pathways across diverse organisms. In plants, IDPs play critical roles in drought stress response through mechanisms involving LLPS and chaperone activity [81]. Comparative analysis of IDP biology across veterinary species can reveal conserved principles of stress adaptation and identify species-specific differences relevant to disease susceptibility.

9. Future Directions

9.1 Quantum Computing and Advanced Simulation

The application of quantum computing to protein folding simulations represents an emerging frontier in computational biology. The QuPepFold package implements hybrid quantum-classical protein folding simulations using conditional value-at-risk (CVaR) optimized variational quantum eigensolvers (VQE) [22]. While currently limited to small systems, quantum approaches may eventually enable the simulation of IDP systems that are intractable for classical computers.

9.2 Generative Deep Learning

Generative deep learning models, including variational autoencoders (VAEs) and generative adversarial networks (GANs), offer new approaches for sampling conformational ensembles of highly dynamic proteins [75]. These methods learn the underlying distribution of conformational states from training data and can generate novel conformations that are physically plausible. The application of generative models to IDP ensemble generation has the potential to overcome the sampling limitations of traditional MD simulations.

9.3 Integrative Platforms

The development of user-friendly platforms for generating and analyzing conformational ensembles of IDPs and IDRs will accelerate research in this field. The Ensemblify platform provides a comprehensive environment for ensemble generation, analysis, and visualization [23]. Similarly, the IDPFold method enables accurate generation of conformational ensembles for intrinsically disordered proteins [24]. These platforms lower the barrier to entry for researchers seeking to incorporate IDP ensemble analysis into their workflows.

10. Conclusions

The computational study of intrinsically disordered proteins presents unique challenges that require specialized methods and careful validation. The generation of accurate conformational ensembles, the development of force fields appropriate for disordered states, and the integration of diverse experimental data remain active areas of methodological development. Machine learning and deep learning approaches have transformed disorder prediction and are increasingly applied to ensemble generation and analysis. The veterinary relevance of IDPs, particularly in host-pathogen interactions and stress response, underscores the importance of continued computational research in this field. As computational methods continue to advance, the integration of IDP biology into veterinary diagnostics and therapeutics will become increasingly feasible.

References

[1] Deka N, Nag N, Tripathi T. Intrinsically disordered proteins and liquid-liquid phase separation in drug discovery. Drug Discov Today. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41544898/

[2] Saha D, Yang W, Zheng W. In Search of Shape in the Unshaped: Constructing Ensembles of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins. Biophys Rev (Melville). 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42147780/

[3] Ghafouri H, Tosatto SCE, Monzon AM. Advances in the determination of disordered protein ensemble. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41385825/

[4] Rindfleisch T, Nencini R, Ollila OHS et al. Molecular Dynamics of the Intrinsically Disordered Protein COR15A─A Force Field Validation on Structure and Dynamics. J Chem Theory Comput. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40907012/

[5] Novello G, Dodaro A, Strascia CC et al. Structuring Disorder via Supervised Molecular Dynamics: Uncovering Arginine-Glycine-Glycine-Mediated Ribonucleic Acid-Intrinsically Disordered Region Recognition Mechanisms. J Chem Inf Model. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42095372/

[6] Zhu K, Wang H, Zhang J et al. Targeting the intrinsically disordered AR-NTD through a machine learning-based enhanced sampling workflow. Nat Commun. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42248893/

[7] Cullen M, Biancaniello C, Taškova K et al. Integrating NMR Restraints into Coarse-Grained Simulations: Toward Accurate Conformational Ensembles of Complex Protein Systems. J Am Chem Soc. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41851975/

[8] Haitin Y, Manori B, Giladi M. Use of biomolecular emulator for characterizing flexible proteins by small-angle x-ray scattering. Protein Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42178622/

[9] Kabir MWU, Dey A, Nafees F et al. ESMDisPred: A Structure-Aware CNN-Transformer Architecture for Intrinsically Disordered Protein Prediction. bioRxiv. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41648466/

[10] Jones D, Wu Y. IDBSpred: An intrinsically disordered binding site predictor using machine learning and protein language model. bioRxiv. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41959048/

[11] Majila K, Ullanat V, Viswanath S. Disobind: A sequence-based, partner-dependent contact map and interface residue predictor for intrinsically disordered regions. Cell Syst. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41534519/

[12] Wu X, Wang K, Hu G et al. Empirical Assessment of Sequence-Based Predictions

[13] Borthakur K, Sisk TR, Panei FP et al. Determining accurate conformational ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins at atomic resolution. Nat Commun. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41073429/

[14] Ghafouri H, Kadeřávek P, Melo AM et al. Toward a unified framework for determining conformational ensembles of disordered proteins. Nat Methods. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41803440/

[15] Wang C, Zhang Y, Fang M et al. Frontiers and challenges in the design of binders for intrinsically disordered proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41887012/

[16] Tesei G, Pesce F, Lindorff-Larsen K. Computational design of intrinsically disordered proteins. Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41579411/

[17] Krueger RK, Brenner MP, Shrinivas K. Generalized design of sequence-ensemble-function relationships for intrinsically disordered proteins. Nat Comput Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41053403/

[18] Mao Y, Bao L, Li G et al. Engineering Design of Artificial Phase-Separating Proteins. Biotechnol J. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42204980/

[19] Löhr T, Karunanithy G, Heller GT. Why are there no clinically-approved drugs targeting disordered proteins? Curr Opin Struct Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41774984/

[20] Senćanski M. New Approach for Targeting Small-Molecule Candidates for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins. Methods Protoc. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41441193/

[21] Hasan MN, Sharma S, Mallen JJ et al. MnM-W-MMGBSA: A Computational Strategy to Improve Relative Binding Free Energies of Protein-Protein Interaction Systems. J Phys Chem B. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41319238/

[22] Uttarkar A, Niranjan V, Saxena A et al. QuPepFold: A python package for hybrid quantum-classical protein folding simulations with CVaR-optimized VQE. PLoS One. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41671215/

[23] Fernandes NP, Gomes T, Cordeiro TN. Ensemblify: A User-friendly Platform for Generating and Analyzing Conformational Ensembles of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Regions. J Mol Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42140310/

[24] Zhu J, Li Z, Zheng Z et al. Accurate Generation of Conformational Ensembles for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins with IDPFold. Adv Sci (Weinh). 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41082321/

[25] Zargarbashi S, Dominguez C, Peters M et al. Label-free optical observation of disordered-to-ordered transitions in single intrinsically disordered proteins. NPJ Biosens. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42273644/

[26] Valverde JA, Luck K. Toward Quantitative Domain-Motif Interactomes: State of the Art, Challenges, and Perspectives. Annu Rev Biomed Data Sci. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42149981/

[27] Lee D, Kim S, Jo G et al. APE1 coordinates its disordered region and metal cofactors to drive genome surveillance. Nucleic Acids Res. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/42132112/

[28] Nde J, Kempf CG, Zimmermann RC et al. Integrative Structural Modeling of Intrinsically Disordered Regions in a Human HDAC2 Chromatin Remodeling Complex. bioRxiv. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41928988/

[29] Saha D, Sun X, Yang W et al. Residue-Specific Modulation of Aggregation-Associated Interactions by Spermine in Tau, α‑Synuclein, and Aβ40. JACS Au. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41889760/

[30] Brownd M, Chaturvedi P, Fakharzadeh A et al. Characterizing the Conformational Dynamics of an Intrinsically Disordered Localization Sequence. bioRxiv. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41867739/

[31] Coskuner-Weber O, Akkum FI, Caglayan SI et al. How do AI ensemble pipelines treat disorder? A head-to-head comparison on α-synuclein. J Biomol Struct Dyn. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41755733/

[32] Ngo KX, Sumikama T, Vuillemot R et al. SimHS-AFMfit-MD: An Integrative Approach for Inferring Alpha-Actinin Atomic Conformational Dynamics. Nano Lett. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41738539/

[33] Chen X, Dai X, Lu P. Protein design and RNA design: Perspectives. Quant Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41675592/

[34] Schnapka V, Morozova TI, Sen S et al. Atomic resolution ensembles of intrinsically disordered proteins with Alphafold. Nat Commun. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41644540/

[35] Dong W, Li X, Zhang S et al. Intrinsically disordered region facilitating lipoprotein transport: Trade time for force reduction. Biophys J. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41580895/

[36] Thomas SD, Rajan A, Mahin A et al. Impact of intrinsically disordered regions and functional disorder hotspots in the human kinome. Brief Bioinform. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41378882/

[37] Maiti S, Tripathi S, Baggett DW et al. Proteome-wide computational analyses reveal links between protein condensate formation and RNA biology. Sci Adv. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41337585/

[38] Xu H, Zhou K, Xia L et al. In-Depth Study of Low-Complexity Domains: From Structural Diversity to Disease Mechanisms. Cells. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41294805/

[39] Ye S, Wang B, Li Z et al. A machine learning protocol for predicting structural distributions of amyloid-forming proteins from 2D IR spectra. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41289380/

[40] Eicholt LA. Structure and Disorder Predictions of Microproteins: Usage, Applications, and Pitfalls. Methods Mol Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41241904/

[41] Perez FP, Bandeira J, Morisaki J et al. Electromagnetic Field Stimulation Effects on Intrinsically Disordered Proteins and Their Role in Aging and Neurodegeneration. J Biomed Sci Eng. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41221473/

[42] Jeyaraj G, Rajendran AK, Sathishkumar K et al. High-resolution protein modeling through Cryo-EM and AI: current trends and future perspectives - a review. Front Mol Biosci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41209584/

[43] Pérez-Canales FM, Alanís-Domínguez E, Rojas AM. Computational Identification of Potential Shape-Shifting Proteins from Structures. Methods Mol Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41174312/

[44] Chandra S, Varadarajan R. Predictive Model for Single-Site Mutations That Change Intrinsically Disordered Protein Binding Energetics. Methods Mol Biol. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41174305/

[45] McBride AC, Yu F, Cheng EH et al. Predicting Pose Distribution of Protein Domains Connected by Flexible Linkers Is an Unsolved Problem. Proteins. 2026. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41102979/

[46] Niazi SK, Yang J. A comprehensive application of FiveFold for conformation ensemble-based protein structure prediction. Sci Rep. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41022992/

[47] Veinstein M, Janssens V, Iorga BI et al. A simple workflow to identify novel small linear motif (SLiM)-mediated interactions with AlphaFold. Brief Bioinform. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41016010/

[48] Basu S, Kurgan L. Comparative assessment of binding residue predictions in intrinsically disordered regions. Protein Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40944448/

[49] Anila MM, Wojciechowski M, Chwastyk M et al. Theoretical Methods for Assessing the Density of Protein Nanodroplets. Int J Mol Sci. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40943551/

[50] Oliver WW, Jacobs WM, Webb MA. When B(2) is Not Enough: Evaluating Simple Metrics for Predicting Phase Separation of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins. J Phys Chem B. 2025. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40911789/

Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only. It is not intended to substitute for professional veterinary advice, diagnosis, treatment, or regulatory guidance. Always consult a licensed veterinarian or qualified specialist regarding animal health, disease diagnosis, and therapeutic decisions.