Cited by 75Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Geometric deep learning of protein–DNA binding specificity

Open access
Mitra, Raktim, Li, Jinsen, Sagendorf, Jared M., Jiang, Yibei, Cohen, Ari S., Chiu, Tsu-Pei, Glasscock, Cameron J., Rohs, Remo·2024·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Predicting protein–DNA binding specificity is a challenging yet essential task for understanding gene regulation. Protein–DNA complexes usually exhibit binding to a selected DNA target site, whereas a protein binds, with varying degrees of binding specificity, to a wide range of DNA sequences. This information is not directly accessible in a single structure. Here, to access this information, we present Deep Predictor of Binding Specificity (DeepPBS), a geometric deep-learning model designed to predict binding specificity from protein–DNA structure. DeepPBS can be applied to experimental or predicted structures. Interpretable protein heavy atom importance scores for interface residues can be extracted. When aggregated at the protein residue level, these scores are validated through mutagenesis experiments. Applied to designed proteins targeting specific DNA sequences, DeepPBS was demonstrated to predict experimentally measured binding specificity. DeepPBS offers a foundation for machine-aided studies that advance our understanding of molecular interactions and guide experimental designs and synthetic biology.

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/s41592-024-02372-w

Cites

6 of 6 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
Mitra, R., Li, J., Sagendorf, J. M., Jiang, Y., Cohen, A. S., Chiu, T.-P., Glasscock, C. J., & Rohs, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern California (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Rohs, Remo
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2024-08-05
Volume
21
Issue
9
Pages
1674-1683
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W4401340626
Cited by
75
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 33 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
FWCI
10.07
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (R35GM130376)
  • Human Frontier Science Program (RGP0021/2018)
  • Andrew J. Viterbi Fellowship in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
protein-DNA binding specificity, geometric deep learning, protein-DNA complex structure, gene expression regulation, protein design, synthetic biology, molecular interactions

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