Cited by 99Protein Structure and DynamicsEnzyme Catalysis and ImmobilizationMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Computational scoring and experimental evaluation of enzymes generated by neural networks

Open access
Johnson, Sean R., Fu, Xiaozhi, Viknander, Sandra, Goldin, Clara, Monaco, Sarah, Zelezniak, Aleksej, Yang, Kevin K.·2025·Nature Biotechnology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

In recent years, generative protein sequence models have been developed to sample novel sequences. However, predicting whether generated proteins will fold and function remains challenging. We evaluate a set of 20 diverse computational metrics to assess the quality of enzyme sequences produced by three contrasting generative models: ancestral sequence reconstruction, a generative adversarial network and a protein language model. Focusing on two enzyme families, we expressed and purified over 500 natural and generated sequences with 70–90% identity to the most similar natural sequences to benchmark computational metrics for predicting in vitro enzyme activity. Over three rounds of experiments, we developed a computational filter that improved the rate of experimental success by 50–150%. The proposed metrics and models will drive protein engineering research by serving as a benchmark for generative protein sequence models and helping to select active variants for experimental testing.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41587-024-02214-2

Cites

14 of 14 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Johnson, S. R., Fu, X., Viknander, S., Goldin, C., Monaco, S., Zelezniak, A., & Yang, K. K.
Affiliations
  • New England Biolabs (United States) (US)
  • Chalmers University of Technology (SE)
  • Invitae (United States) (US)
  • Vilnius University (LT)
  • Microsoft (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Zelezniak, Aleksej
  • Yang, Kevin K.
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2024-04-23
Volume
43
Issue
3
Pages
396-405
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W4395048825
Cited by
99
References
14
Citations by year
2026: 32 · 2025: 39 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 3
FWCI
13.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Chalmers Research (Chalmers University of Technology) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Vetenskapsrådet (2019-05356, 2022-06725)
  • Svenska Forskningsrådet Formas (2019-01403)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Enzyme Catalysis and Immobilization
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
enzyme design, ancestral sequence reconstruction, generative adversarial networks, protein language models, in vitro enzyme activity, protein engineering, benchmarking, enzyme families
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Amino Acid Sequence, Enzymes, Protein Engineering, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology

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