Brief Bioinform. 2026 Sep 1;27(5):bbag461. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbag461.ABSTRACTPredicting accurate protein structures is essential for understanding molecular mechanisms, interpreting the impact of sequence variation, and supporting translational applications ranging from drug discovery to clinical genomics. Recent advances in deep-learning-based predictors such as AlphaFold2, OpenFold, and AlphaFold3 have transformed structural biology, enabling routine in silico modeling even for challenging or previously uncharacterized proteins. However, systematic benchmarking of these tools-especially for novel targets and single amino acid variants-remains limited. Conventional global metrics often fail to capture biologically meaningful discrepancies. By evaluating multiple implementations of AlphaFold2 and OpenFold, together with ColabFold and the AlphaFold3 server, across 10 different proteins and 222 single amino acid protein variants encompassing a wide range of sizes, structures, and functions, we show that although widely used global indicators-like mean pLDDT, pTM-score, and RMSD-frequently suggest comparable performance, substantial local-level differences remain elusive. To address this gap, we introduce a comparative framework leveraging Bland-Altman agreement analysis, to evaluate per-residue Cα-confidence differences and Per-Residue profiles (PRPs), complemented by Uniform Manifold Approximation and Projection (UMAP). This approach reveals marked localized divergences, particularly within flexible or intrinsically disordered regions, where both predictor choice and single-residue substitutions trigger the largest conformational shifts. We further demonstrate that using reduced homology databases has minimal impact on predicted structural quality, offering computationally efficient alternatives. Collectively, our findings underscore the importance of integrating global and residue-specific evaluations to more accurately assess robustness, agreement, and practical usability across contemporary protein structure prediction methods.PMID:42691505 | DOI:10.1093/bib/bbag461