The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Heterologous expression of naturally evolved putative de novo proteins with chaperones
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Over the past decade, evidence has accumulated that new protein‐coding genes can emerge de novo from previously non‐coding DNA. Most studies have focused on large scale computational predictions of de novo protein‐coding genes across a wide range of organisms. In contrast, experimental data concerning the folding and function of de novo proteins are scarce. This might be due to difficulties in handling de novo proteins in vitro , as most are short and predicted to be disordered. Here, we propose a guideline for the effective expression of eukaryotic de novo proteins in Escherichia coli . We used 11 sequences from Drosophila melanogaster and 10 from Homo sapiens , that are predicted de novo proteins from former studies, for heterologous expression. The candidate de novo proteins have varying secondary structure and disorder content. Using multiple combinations of purification tags, E. coli expression strains, and chaperone systems, we were able to increase the number of solubly expressed putative de novo proteins from 30% to 62%. Our findings indicate that the best combination for expressing putative de novo proteins in E. coli is a GST‐tag with T7 Express cells and co‐expressed chaperones. We found that, overall, proteins with higher predicted disorder were easier to express. Statement: Today, we know that proteins do not only evolve by duplication and divergence of existing proteins but also arise from previously non‐coding DNA. These proteins are called de novo proteins. Their properties are still poorly understood and their experimental analysis faces major obstacles. Here, we aim to present a starting point for soluble expression of de novo proteins with the help of chaperones and thereby enable further characterization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Figures






Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764
Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a 3-track network
Baek, M., DiMaio, F., Anishchenko, I., Dauparas, J., Ovchinnikov, S., Lee, G. R., Wang, J., Cong, Q., Kinch, L. N., Schaeffer, R. D., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.06.14.448402 · Cited by 5,549
The evolutionary origin of orphan genes
Tautz, D., & Domazet-Lošo, T. (2011) · Nature Reviews Genetics · doi:10.1038/nrg3053 · Cited by 764
AlphaFold and Implications for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins
Ruff, K. M., & Pappu, R. V. (2021) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2021.167208 · Cited by 635 · cited 1×
“While contemporary prediction methods can certainly provide a first estimate on structure, the intrinsic nature of de novo proteins, with their short length, high disorder content and lack of homology, will demand some scepticism while analyzing such predictions.(67,68) Surprisingly, the AlphaFold prediction of Goddar…”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 70
- 10.1038/nrg.2016.78 · DOI
- 10.12688/f1000research.10079.1 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pgen.1008160 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tig.2019.08.007 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.11.010 · DOI
- 10.1101/2022.01.14.476368 · DOI
- 10.1002/9780470619902.ch1 · DOI
- 10.1007/978-3-642-86659-3 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2013.02.012 · DOI
- 10.7554/eLife.53500 · DOI
- 10.1534/genetics.105.050336 · DOI
- 10.1534/genetics.107.084491 · DOI
- 10.1186/1471-2164-14-117 · DOI
- 10.1098/rstb.2014.0332 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.tig.2015.02.007 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41559‐018‐0639‐7 · DOI
- 10.1093/molbev/msx315 · DOI
- 10.1534/g3.119.400326 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41559-019-0822-5 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/s00239-020-09939-z · DOI
- 10.1093/gbe/evaa194 · DOI
- 10.3390/genes13020284 · DOI
- 10.1093/molbev/msw284 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41467-021-21667-6 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.str.2017.09.006 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature08009 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.1169375 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.jmb.2022.167462 · DOI
- 10.1038/nrg2808 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-017-15635-8 · DOI
- 10.1186/1475-2859-7-11 · DOI
- 10.1042/BST20150089 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060815-014124 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1510083112 · DOI
- 10.1038/nsmb.1394 · DOI
- 10.1007/BF02785589 · DOI
- 10.1002/j.1460-2075.1993.tb06097.x · DOI
- 10.1038/nchembio.455 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev-biochem-060208-092442 · DOI
- 10.1038/nature20137 · DOI
- 10.1038/337044a0 · DOI
- 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009787 · DOI
- 10.1002/cpbi.99 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gky384 · DOI
- 10.1101/289033 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-019-48786-x · DOI
- 10.1016/j.str.2003.10.002 · DOI
- 10.3390/ijms21239186 · DOI
- 10.1093/molbev/msu286 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.cub101/2022.01.13.476251 · DOI
- 10.2174/138920306775474095 · DOI
- 10.1002/0471140864.ps0519s50 · DOI
- 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00172 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-1-60761-913-0_14 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.celrep.2011.12.007 · DOI
- 10.1101/2021.09.29.462496 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1201380109 · DOI
- 10.1155/2014/176172 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.1312296111 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1007/978-1-0716-0524-0_27 · DOI
- 10.1021/acs.biochem.0c00961 · DOI
- 10.1126/science.abj8754 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioadv/vbab043 · DOI
- 10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz670 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1128/AEM.64.5.1694-1699.1998 · DOI
- 10.1128/AEM.66.3.884-889.2000 · DOI
- 10.1016/0378-1119(90)90336-p · DOI
- 10.1101/pdb.prot3944 · DOI
Metadata
- Authors
- Eicholt, L. A., Aubel, M., Berk, K., Bornberg‐Bauer, E., & Lange, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Münster (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Lange, Andreas
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2022-07-13
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e4371-e4371
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- PMC
- PMC9278007
- OpenAlex
- W4285395243
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 1.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (281125614/GRK2220)
- Volkswagen Foundation (98183)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein purification and stability
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Heat shock proteins research
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Keywords
- heterologous expression, molecular chaperones, Escherichia coli expression, protein solubility, intrinsically disordered proteins, Drosophila melanogaster, human, protein folding
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Drosophila melanogaster, Escherichia coli, Eukaryotic Cells, Protein Structure, Secondary, Molecular Chaperones
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Heterologous expression of naturally evolved putative de novo proteins with chaperones. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/pro.4371
- The paper
- Eicholt, L. A., Aubel, M., Berk, K., Bornberg‐Bauer, E., & Lange, A. (2022). Heterologous expression of naturally evolved putative de novo proteins with chaperones. Protein Science. https://doi.org/10.1002/pro.4371