Best templates outperform homology models in predicting the impact of mutations on protein stability
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Motivation: Prediction of protein stability change upon mutation (ΔΔG) is crucial for facilitating protein engineering and understanding of protein folding principles. Robust prediction of protein folding free energy change requires the knowledge of protein three-dimensional (3D) structure. In case, protein 3D structure is not available, one can predict the structure from protein sequence; however, the perspectives of ΔΔG predictions for predicted protein structures are unknown. The accuracy of using 3D structures of the best templates for the ΔΔG prediction is also unclear. Results: To investigate these questions, we used a representative set of seven diverse and accurate publicly available tools (FoldX, Eris, Rosetta, DDGun, ACDC-NN, ThermoNet and DynaMut) for stability change prediction combined with AlphaFold or I-Tasser for protein 3D structure prediction. We found that best templates perform consistently better than (or similar to) homology models for all ΔΔG predictors. Our findings imply using the best template structure for the prediction of protein stability change upon mutation if the protein 3D structure is not available. Availability and implementation: The data are available at https://github.com/ivankovlab/template-vs-model. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Using AlphaFold models instead of PDB structures does not make ΔΔG predictions more accurate.
“Thus, using AlphaFold models instead of PDB structures does not make ΔΔG predictions more accurate [15]”
From Using AlphaFold to predict the impact of single mutations on protein stability and function (2023) · cites this paper as [15]
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
Guerois, R., Nielsen, J. E., & Serrano, L. (2002) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-2836(02)00442-4 · Cited by 1,728 · see citing works
A structural biology community assessment of AlphaFold2 applications
Akdel, M., Pires, D. E. V., Pardo, E. P., Jänes, J., Zalevsky, A. O., Mészáros, B., Bryant, P., Good, L. L., Laskowski, R. A., Pozzati, G., et al. (2022) · Nature Structural & Molecular Biology · doi:10.1038/s41594-022-00849-w · Cited by 675 · see citing works
‘It will change everything’: DeepMind’s AI makes gigantic leap in solving protein structures
Callaway, E. (2020) · Nature · doi:10.1038/d41586-020-03348-4 · Cited by 499 · see citing works
Assessing the utility of <scp>CASP14</scp> models for molecular replacement
Millán, C., Keegan, R. M., Pereira, J., Sammito, M. D., Simpkin, A. J., McCoy, A. J., Lupas, A. N., Hartmann, M. D., Rigden, D. J., & Read, R. J. (2021) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26214 · Cited by 62 · see citing works
Lv, X., Chen, J., Lu, Y., Chen, Z., Xiao, N., & Yang, Y. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00064 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Using AlphaFold to predict the impact of single mutations on protein stability and function
Pak, M. A., Markhieva, K. A., Novikova, M. S., Petrov, D. S., Vorobyev, I. S., Maksimova, E. S., Kondrashov, F. A., & Ivankov, D. N. (2023) · PLOS One · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0282689 · Cited by 322 · see citing works
Self-citationAccurate protein stability predictions from homology models
Valanciute, A., Nygaard, L., Zschach, H., Maglegaard Jepsen, M., Lindorff-Larsen, K., & Stein, A. (2023) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.1016/j.csbj.2022.11.048 · Cited by 33 · see citing works
- Authors
- Pak, M. A., & Ivankov, D. N.
- Affiliations
- Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology (RU)
- Corresponding author
- Ivankov, Dmitry N
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2022-07-27
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 4312-4320
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- OpenAlex
- W4288068292
- Cited by
- 26
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 1.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Skolkovo Institute of Science and Technology
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- ΔΔG, point mutations, homology model, template-based structure prediction, AlphaFold, I-TASSER, protein folding free energy, protein engineering
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Mutation, Proteins, Protein Folding, 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