Correspondence between functional scores from deep mutational scans and predicted effects on protein stability
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Many methodologically diverse computational methods have been applied to the growing challenge of predicting and interpreting the effects of protein variants. As many pathogenic mutations have a perturbing effect on protein stability or intermolecular interactions, one highly interpretable approach is to use protein structural information to model the physical impacts of variants and predict their likely effects on protein stability and interactions. Previous efforts have assessed the accuracy of stability predictors in reproducing thermodynamically accurate values and evaluated their ability to distinguish between known pathogenic and benign mutations. Here, we take an alternate approach, and explore how well stability predictor scores correlate with functional impacts derived from deep mutational scanning (DMS) experiments. In this work, we compare the predictions of 9 protein stability‐based tools against mutant protein fitness values from 49 independent DMS datasets, covering 170,940 unique single amino acid variants. We find that FoldX and Rosetta show the strongest correlations with DMS‐based functional scores, similar to their previous top performance in distinguishing between pathogenic and benign variants. For both methods, performance is considerably improved when considering intermolecular interactions from protein complex structures, when available. Furthermore, using these two predictors, we derive a “Foldetta” consensus score, which improves upon the performance of both, and manages to match dedicated variant effect predictors in reflecting variant functional impacts. Finally, we also highlight that predicted stability effects show consistently higher correlations with certain DMS experimental phenotypes, particularly those based upon protein abundance, and, in certain cases, can significantly outcompete sequence‐based variant effect prediction methodologies for predicting functional scores from DMS experiments.
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
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.
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 · see citing works
Deep mutational scanning: a new style of protein science
Fowler, D. M., & Fields, S. (2014) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/nmeth.3027 · Cited by 1,287 · see citing works
Rapid protein stability prediction using deep learning representations
Blaabjerg, L. M., Kassem, M. M., Good, L. L., Jonsson, N., Cagiada, M., Johansson, K. E., Boomsma, W., Stein, A., & Lindorff-Larsen, K. (2023) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.82593 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
On the biases in predictions of protein stability changes upon variations: the INPS test case
Montanucci, L., Savojardo, C., Martelli, P. L., Casadio, R., & Fariselli, P. (2019) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty979 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Badonyi, M., & Marsh, J. A. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-63234-3 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
“…and ΔΔ G estimation, incorporating predicted structures of protein complexes 102 – 107 could substantially improve the accuracy of missense LOF likelihood estimation by providing more biologically representative structural insights through the consideration of inter-molecular interactions 16,108 .”
Self-citationDeciphering GB1’s Single Mutational Landscape: Insights from MuMi Analysis
Guclu, T. F., Atilgan, A. R., & Atilgan, C. (2024) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry B · doi:10.1021/acs.jpcb.4c04916
- Authors
- Gerasimavicius, L., Livesey, B. J., & Marsh, J. A.
- Affiliations
- Institute of Genetics and Cancer (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Marsh, Joseph A.
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-06-16
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- e4688-e4688
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-896X
- PMC
- PMC10273344
- OpenAlex
- W4378530277
- Cited by
- 41
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 4
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Edinburgh Research Explorer (University of Edinburgh) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- European Research Council (101001169)
- Lister Institute of Preventive Medicine
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Keywords
- protein stability prediction, deep mutational scanning, single amino acid variants, FoldX, Rosetta, protein complex structure, intermolecular interactions, protein abundance, variant effect prediction
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acids, Mutation, Proteins, Protein Stability
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