Papers
arxiv:2611.07723

Static Recovery Is Not Dynamic Stability: Dynamics-Aware Benchmarking of Protein Motif Scaffolding

Published on Nov 5
· Submitted by
Emile de Bruyn
on Nov 9
Authors:
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,
,

Abstract

New benchmarks and molecular dynamics frameworks are presented to rigorously evaluate protein scaffold-generation models by assessing dynamic fidelity and structural stability beyond static success.

Protein motif scaffolding benchmarks assess whether generative models can build scaffolds around functionally important residues. Their conclusions depend on which motifs are tested and which criteria define success. Existing benchmarks typically use small hand-curated motif sets and static refolding criteria, but protein function often depends on conformational ensembles and transitions. Here, we address both benchmark scope and success criteria. We introduce BILBY-PRO, a systematically derived benchmark of structurally conserved functional motifs from PROSITE-linked experimental structures, comprising 220 cases from 174 PROSITE motif-pattern entries. Evaluating six recent scaffold-generation models reveals distinct patterns in target coverage and unique-solution yield: RFDiffusion and Proteina solve more targets, whereas ESM3 produces more unique successful scaffolds on the targets it solves. We further introduce BILBY-MD, a reference-based all-atom molecular dynamics evaluation framework. Applied to statically solved designs from the original MotifBench benchmark, it compares motif drift, scaffold drift, motif-contact preservation, and motif-dihedral free-energy landscapes against reference simulations. Of 55 statically solved model-problem pairs, 31 satisfy our MD-supported criterion and only 8 pass all checks. Compact, self-contained motifs are often MD-supported, whereas interface-like or context-dependent motifs fail more frequently. Static refolding success therefore provides useful evidence of local motif recovery but does not establish dynamical fidelity of the full scaffold. BILBY highlights three complementary axes of motif-scaffolding evaluation: target coverage, unique-solution yield, and MD-supported dynamical fidelity.

Community

Paper author Paper submitter

Can we trust a protein design just because its predicted structure looks correct?

In our NeurIPS 2026 Evaluations & Datasets paper, we show why static motif-scaffolding benchmarks tell only part of the story. Of 55 statically successful design–problem pairs, only 31 passed our molecular dynamics validation criteria, and just 8 passed every check.

We introduce BILBY, two complementary open research resources:

🧬 BILBY-PRO: 220 systematically derived functional motif-scaffolding benchmarks from PROSITE-linked experimental structures.

🔬 BILBY-MD: A reusable molecular dynamics framework for assessing structural drift, motif-contact preservation, and conformational ensemble fidelity against experimental references.

Our MD study evaluates designs from the original MotifBench benchmark, independently of the new BILBY-PRO dataset.

We hope BILBY will help make evaluation of generative protein-design methods more rigorous, reproducible, and physically meaningful.

Paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.07723

Dataset: https://huggingface.co/datasets/HFMI-PROFOUND/BILBY-PRO

MD framework: https://github.com/PROFOUND-HFMI/BILBY-MD

Feedback and discussions are very welcome!

This one is a good reminder that a pretty static fold isn't the same as a working protein. Judging scaffolds by dynamics feels fairer to me. Which motif types changed rank the most once dynamics were counted?

This is an automated message from the Librarian Bot. I found the following papers similar to this paper.

The following papers were recommended by the Semantic Scholar API

Please give a thumbs up to this comment if you found it helpful!

If you want recommendations for any Paper on Hugging Face checkout this Space

You can directly ask Librarian Bot for paper recommendations by tagging it in a comment: @librarian-bot recommend

Sign up or log in to comment

Models citing this paper 0

No model linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.07723 in a model README.md to link it from this page.

Datasets citing this paper 1

Spaces citing this paper 0

No Space linking this paper

Cite arxiv.org/abs/2611.07723 in a Space README.md to link it from this page.

Collections including this paper 2