Exploring Evolution to Uncover Insights Into Protein Mutational Stability
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Determining the impact of mutations on the thermodynamic stability of proteins is essential for a wide range of applications such as rational protein design and genetic variant interpretation. Since protein stability is a major driver of evolution, evolutionary data are often used to guide stability predictions. Many state-of-the-art stability predictors extract evolutionary information from multiple sequence alignments of proteins homologous to a query protein, and leverage it to predict the effects of mutations on protein stability. To evaluate the power and the limitations of such methods, we used the massive amount of stability data recently obtained by deep mutational scanning to study how best to construct multiple sequence alignments and optimally extract evolutionary information from them. We tested different evolutionary models and found that, unexpectedly, independent-site models achieve similar accuracy to more complex epistatic models. A detailed analysis of the latter models suggests that their inference often results in noisy couplings, which do not appear to add predictive power over the independent-site contribution, at least in the context of stability prediction. Interestingly, by combining any of the evolutionary features with a simple structural feature, the relative solvent accessibility of the mutated residue, we achieved similar prediction accuracy to supervised, machine learning-based, protein stability change predictors. Our results provide new insights into the relationship between protein evolution and stability, and show how evolutionary information can be exploited to improve the performance of mutational stability prediction.
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
Morcos, F., Pagnani, A., Lunt, B., Bertolino, A., Marks, D. S., Sander, C., Zecchina, R., Onuchic, J. N., Hwa, T., & Weigt, M. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1111471108 · Cited by 1,434 · see citing works
Mutation effects predicted from sequence co-variation
Hopf, T. A., Ingraham, J. B., Poelwijk, F. J., Schärfe, C. P. I., Springer, M., Sander, C., & Marks, D. S. (2017) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/nbt.3769 · Cited by 775 · see citing works
Protein-level assembly increases protein sequence recovery from metagenomic samples manyfold
Steinegger, M., Mirdita, M., & Söding, J. (2019) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0437-4 · Cited by 445 · see citing works
Li, L., Ning, Z., Zhang, X., Mayne, J., Cheng, K., Stintzi, A., & Figeys, D. (2020) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00806-z · Cited by 328 · see citing works
Levy Karin, E., Mirdita, M., & Söding, J. (2020) · Microbiome · doi:10.1186/s40168-020-00808-x · Cited by 299 · 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
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Tsishyn, M., Hermans, P., Rooman, M., & Pucci, F. (2025) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf322 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Hermans, P., Tsishyn, M., Schwersensky, M., Rooman, M., & Pucci, F.
- Affiliations
- Université Libre de Bruxelles (BE)
- Corresponding author
- Rooman, Marianne
- Pucci, Fabrizio
- Venue
- Molecular Biology and Evolution
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-12-30
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 0737-4038 (ISSN-L)
- 1537-1719
- PMC
- PMC11721782
- OpenAlex
- W4405906579
- Cited by
- 6
- References
- 7
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 5
- FWCI
- 0.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Molecular Biology and Evolution (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Dépôt institutionnel de l'Université libre de Bruxelles (Université Libre de Bruxelles) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- F.R.S.-FNRS
- FNRS
- FRIA
- SPW
- Walloon Region
- 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
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
- Keywords
- protein stability, deep mutational scanning, multiple sequence alignment, evolutionary models, solvent accessibility, protein evolution, rational protein design, variant interpretation
- MeSH terms
- Models, Genetic, Mutation, Proteins, Thermodynamics, Sequence Alignment, Evolution, Molecular, 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