Geometric deep learning of protein–DNA binding specificity
Open accessPublished 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.
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
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · see citing works
The role of DNA shape in protein–DNA recognition
Rohs, R., West, S. M., Sosinsky, A., Liu, P., Mann, R. S., & Honig, B. (2009) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature08473 · Cited by 1,096 · see citing works
Self-citationAbsence of a simple code: how transcription factors read the genome
Slattery, M., Zhou, T., Yang, L., Dantas Machado, A. C., Gordân, R., & Rohs, R. (2014) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2014.07.002 · Cited by 537 · see citing works
Self-citationAhdritz, G., Bouatta, N., Floristean, C., Kadyan, S., Xia, Q., Gerecke, W., O’Donnell, T. J., Berenberg, D., Fisk, I., Zanichelli, N., et al. (2024) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-024-02272-z · Cited by 439 · cited 1× · see citing works
“The rapid advancement of protein structure prediction meth-ods, including AlphaFold 26 , OpenFold 27 and RoseTTAFold 28 , along with protein–DNA complex modelers, such as RoseTTAFoldNA (RFNA) 29 , RoseTTAFold All-Atom 30 , MELD-DNA 31 and AlphaFold3 (ref.”
MethodStructure of IRF-1 with bound DNA reveals determinants of interferon regulation
Escalante, C. R., Yie, J., Thanos, D., & Aggarwal, A. K. (1998) · Nature · doi:10.1038/34224 · Cited by 397 · see citing works
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
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature Methods
- Published
- 2024-08-05
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1674-1683
- ISSN
- 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
- 1548-7105
- PMC
- PMC11399107
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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