CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 2,107Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 35 of the 35 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN

Open access
Dauparas, J., Anishchenko, I., Bennett, N., Bai, H., Ragotte, R. J., Milles, L. F., Wicky, B. I. M., Courbet, A., de Haas, R. J., Bethel, N., Leung, P. J. Y., Huddy, T. F., Pellock, S., Tischer, D., Chan, F., Koepnick, B., Nguyen, H., Kang, A., Sankaran, B., Bera, A. K., King, N. P., Baker, D.·2022·Science
DOI 10.1101/2022.06.03.494563PMC PMC9997061

Preprint — published as 10.1126/science.add2187 · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

While deep learning has revolutionized protein structure prediction, almost all experimentally characterized de novo protein designs have been generated using physically based approaches such as Rosetta. Here we describe a deep learning based protein sequence design method, ProteinMPNN, with outstanding performance in both in silico and experimental tests. The amino acid sequence at different positions can be coupled between single or multiple chains, enabling application to a wide range of current protein design challenges. On native protein backbones, ProteinMPNN has a sequence recovery of 52.4%, compared to 32.9% for Rosetta. Incorporation of noise during training improves sequence recovery on protein structure models, and produces sequences which more robustly encode their structures as assessed using structure prediction algorithms. We demonstrate the broad utility and high accuracy of ProteinMPNN using X-ray crystallography, cryoEM and functional studies by rescuing previously failed designs, made using Rosetta or AlphaFold, of protein monomers, cyclic homo-oligomers, tetrahedral nanoparticles, and target binding proteins. One-sentence summary: A deep learning based protein sequence design method is described that is widely applicable to current design challenges and shows outstanding performance in both in silico and experimental tests.

Overview

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 · 10.1101/2022.06.03.494563

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1. ProteinMPNN architecture. (A) Distances between N, Ca, C, O, and virtual Cb are encoded and processed using a message passing neural network (Encoder) to obtain graph node and edge features. The encoded features together with a partial sequence are used to generate amino acids iteratively in a random decoding order. (B) A fixed left to right decoding cannot use sequence context (green) for preceding positions (yellow) whereas a model trained with random decoding orders can be used with arbitrary decoding order during the inference. The decoding order can be chosen such that the fixed context is decoded first. (C) Residue positions within and between chains can be tied together, enabling symmetric, repeat protein, and multistate design. In this example, a homo-trimer is designed with coupling of positions in different chains. Predicted logits for tied positions are averaged to get a single probability distribution from which amino acids are sampled.
Fig. 1. ProteinMPNN architecture. (A) Distances between N, Ca, C, O, and virtual Cb are encoded and processed using a message passing neural network (Encoder) to obtain graph node and edge features. The encoded features together with a partial sequence are used to generate amino acids iteratively in a random decoding order. (B) A fixed left to right decoding cannot use sequence context (green) for preceding positions (yellow) whereas a model trained with random decoding orders can be used with arbitrary decoding order during the inference. The decoding order can be chosen such that the fixed context is decoded first. (C) Residue positions within and between chains can be tied together, enabling symmetric, repeat protein, and multistate design. In this example, a homo-trimer is designed with coupling of positions in different chains. Predicted logits for tied positions are averaged to get a single probability distribution from which amino acids are sampled.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 2. In silico evaluation of ProteinMPNN. (A) ProteinMPNN has higher native sequence recovery than Rosetta. The average Cb distance of the 8 closest neighbors (x axis) reports on burial, with most buried positions on the left and more exposed on the right; ProteinMPNN outperforms Rosetta at all levels of burial. Average sequence recovery for ProteinMPNN was 52.4%, compared to 32.9% for Rosetta. (B) ProteinMPNN has similarly high sequence recovery for monomers, homo-oligomers, and hetero-oligomers; violin plots are for 690 monomers, 732 homomers, 98 heteromers. (C) Sequence recovery (black) and relative AlphaFold success rates (blue) as a function of training noise level. For higher accuracy predictions (circles) smaller amounts of noise are optimal (1.0 corresponds to 1.8% success rate), while to maximize prediction success at a lower accuracy cutoff (squares), models trained with more noise are better (1.0 corresponds to 6.7% success rate). (D) Sequence recovery and diversity as a function of sampling temperature. Redesign of native protein backbones with ProteinMPNN considerably increases AphaFold prediction accuracy compared to the original native sequence using no multiple sequence information. Single sequences (designed or native) were input in both cases. (F) ProteinMPNN redesign of previous Rosetta designed NTF2 fold proteins (3,000 backbones in total) results in considerably improved AlphaFold single sequence prediction accuracy.
Fig. 2. In silico evaluation of ProteinMPNN. (A) ProteinMPNN has higher native sequence recovery than Rosetta. The average Cb distance of the 8 closest neighbors (x axis) reports on burial, with most buried positions on the left and more exposed on the right; ProteinMPNN outperforms Rosetta at all levels of burial. Average sequence recovery for ProteinMPNN was 52.4%, compared to 32.9% for Rosetta. (B) ProteinMPNN has similarly high sequence recovery for monomers, homo-oligomers, and hetero-oligomers; violin plots are for 690 monomers, 732 homomers, 98 heteromers. (C) Sequence recovery (black) and relative AlphaFold success rates (blue) as a function of training noise level. For higher accuracy predictions (circles) smaller amounts of noise are optimal (1.0 corresponds to 1.8% success rate), while to maximize prediction success at a lower accuracy cutoff (squares), models trained with more noise are better (1.0 corresponds to 6.7% success rate). (D) Sequence recovery and diversity as a function of sampling temperature. Redesign of native protein backbones with ProteinMPNN considerably increases AphaFold prediction accuracy compared to the original native sequence using no multiple sequence information. Single sequences (designed or native) were input in both cases. (F) ProteinMPNN redesign of previous Rosetta designed NTF2 fold proteins (3,000 backbones in total) results in considerably improved AlphaFold single sequence prediction accuracy.CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 3. Structural characterization of ProteinMPNN designs. (A) Comparison of soluble protein expression over a set of AlphaFold hallucinated monomers and homo-oligomers (blue) and the same set of backbones with sequences designed using ProteinMPNN (orange), N=129. The total soluble protein yield following expression in E. coli, obtained from the integrated area unders size exclusion traces of nickel-NTA purified proteins, increases considerably from the barely soluble protein of the original sequences following ProteinMPNN rescue (median yields for 1 L of culture equivalent: 9 and 247 mg respectively). (B), (C), (D) In depth characterization of a monomer hallucination and corresponding ProteinMPNN rescue from the set in A. Like almost all of the designs in A, the sequence and structural similarity to the PDB of the design model are very low (E-value=2.8 against UniRef100 using HHblits, TM-score=0.56 against PDB). (B) The ProteinMPNN rescued design has high thermostability, with a virtually unchanged circular dichroism profile at 95 °C compared to 25 °C (C) Size exclusion (SEC) profile of failed original design overlaid with the ProteinMPNN sequence design, which has a clear monodisperse peak at the expected retention volume. (D) Crystal structure of the ProteinMPNN (8CYK) design is nearly identical to the design model (2.35 RMSD over 130 residues), see Figure S5 for additional information. Right panel shows model sidechains in the electron density, in green crystal side chains, in blue AlphaFold side chains. (E), (F) ProteinMPNN rescue of Rosetta design made from a perfectly repeating structural and sequence unit (DHR82). Residues at corresponding positions in the repeat unit were tied during ProteinMPNN sequence inference. (E) Backbone design model and MPNN redesigned sequence AlphaFold model with tied residues indicated by lines (~1.2Å error over 232 residues). (F) SEC profile of IMAC purified original Rosetta design and two ProteinMPNN redesigns. (G), (H) Tying residues during ProteinMPNN sequence inference both within and between chains to enforce both repeat protein and cyclic symmetries. (G) Side view of design model. A set of tied residues are shown in red. (H) Top-down view of design model. (I) Negative stain electron micrograph of purified design. (J) Class average of images from I closely match top down view in H. (K) Rescue of the failed two-component Rosetta tetrahedral nanoparticle design T33–27 (13) by ProteinMPNN interface design. Following ProteinMPNN rescue, the nanoparticle assembled readily with high yield, and the crystal structure (grey) is very nearly identical to the design model (green/purple) (backbone RMSD of 1.2 Å over two complete asymmetric units forming the ProteinMPNN rescued interface).
Fig. 3. Structural characterization of ProteinMPNN designs. (A) Comparison of soluble protein expression over a set of AlphaFold hallucinated monomers and homo-oligomers (blue) and the same set of backbones with sequences designed using ProteinMPNN (orange), N=129. The total soluble protein yield following expression in E. coli, obtained from the integrated area unders size exclusion traces of nickel-NTA purified proteins, increases considerably from the barely soluble protein of the original sequences following ProteinMPNN rescue (median yields for 1 L of culture equivalent: 9 and 247 mg respectively). (B), (C), (D) In depth characterization of a monomer hallucination and corresponding ProteinMPNN rescue from the set in A. Like almost all of the designs in A, the sequence and structural similarity to the PDB of the design model are very low (E-value=2.8 against UniRef100 using HHblits, TM-score=0.56 against PDB). (B) The ProteinMPNN rescued design has high thermostability, with a virtually unchanged circular dichroism profile at 95 °C compared to 25 °C (C) Size exclusion (SEC) profile of failed original design overlaid with the ProteinMPNN sequence design, which has a clear monodisperse peak at the expected retention volume. (D) Crystal structure of the ProteinMPNN (8CYK) design is nearly identical to the design model (2.35 RMSD over 130 residues), see Figure S5 for additional information. Right panel shows model sidechains in the electron density, in green crystal side chains, in blue AlphaFold side chains. (E), (F) ProteinMPNN rescue of Rosetta design made from a perfectly repeating structural and sequence unit (DHR82). Residues at corresponding positions in the repeat unit were tied during ProteinMPNN sequence inference. (E) Backbone design model and MPNN redesigned sequence AlphaFold model with tied residues indicated by lines (~1.2Å error over 232 residues). (F) SEC profile of IMAC purified original Rosetta design and two ProteinMPNN redesigns. (G), (H) Tying residues during ProteinMPNN sequence inference both within and between chains to enforce both repeat protein and cyclic symmetries. (G) Side view of design model. A set of tied residues are shown in red. (H) Top-down view of design model. (I) Negative stain electron micrograph of purified design. (J) Class average of images from I closely match top down view in H. (K) Rescue of the failed two-component Rosetta tetrahedral nanoparticle design T33–27 (13) by ProteinMPNN interface design. Following ProteinMPNN rescue, the nanoparticle assembled readily with high yield, and the crystal structure (grey) is very nearly identical to the design model (green/purple) (backbone RMSD of 1.2 Å over two complete asymmetric units forming the ProteinMPNN rescued interface).CC BY · PubMed Central
Fig. 4. Design of protein function with ProteinMPNN. (A) Design scheme. First panel; structure (PDB 2W0Z) of the peptide APPPRPPKP bound to the human Grb2 C-term SH3 domain (peptide is in green, target in surface and colored blue). Second panel: helical bundle scaffolds were docked to the exposed face of the peptide using RIFDOCK (19), and Rosetta remodel was used to build loops connecting the peptide to the scaffolds. Rosetta sequence design with layer design task operations was used to optimize the sequence of the fusion (Cyan) for stability, rigidity of the peptide-helical bundle interface, and binding affinity for the Grb2 SH3 domain. Third panel; ProteinMPNN redesign (orange) of the designed binder sequence; hydrogen bonds involving asparagine sidechains between the peptide and base scaffold are shown in green and in the inset. Fourth panel; Mutation of the two asparagines to aspartates to disrupt the scaffolding of the target peptide. (B) Experimental characterization of binding using biolayer interferometry. Biotinylated C-term SH3 domain from human Grb2 was loaded onto Streptavidin (SA) Biosensors, which were then immersed in solutions containing varying concentrations of the target peptide (left) of the designs (right panels), and then transferred to buffer lacking added protein for dissociation measurements. The MPNN design (3rd panel from the left) has much greater binding signal than the original Rosetta design (2nd panel from the left); this is greatly reduced by the asparagine to aspartate mutations (last panel).
Fig. 4. Design of protein function with ProteinMPNN. (A) Design scheme. First panel; structure (PDB 2W0Z) of the peptide APPPRPPKP bound to the human Grb2 C-term SH3 domain (peptide is in green, target in surface and colored blue). Second panel: helical bundle scaffolds were docked to the exposed face of the peptide using RIFDOCK (19), and Rosetta remodel was used to build loops connecting the peptide to the scaffolds. Rosetta sequence design with layer design task operations was used to optimize the sequence of the fusion (Cyan) for stability, rigidity of the peptide-helical bundle interface, and binding affinity for the Grb2 SH3 domain. Third panel; ProteinMPNN redesign (orange) of the designed binder sequence; hydrogen bonds involving asparagine sidechains between the peptide and base scaffold are shown in green and in the inset. Fourth panel; Mutation of the two asparagines to aspartates to disrupt the scaffolding of the target peptide. (B) Experimental characterization of binding using biolayer interferometry. Biotinylated C-term SH3 domain from human Grb2 was loaded onto Streptavidin (SA) Biosensors, which were then immersed in solutions containing varying concentrations of the target peptide (left) of the designs (right panels), and then transferred to buffer lacking added protein for dissociation measurements. The MPNN design (3rd panel from the left) has much greater binding signal than the original Rosetta design (2nd panel from the left); this is greatly reduced by the asparagine to aspartate mutations (last panel).CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Show all 35 references

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. 2013, In Methods in enzymology, 523, 109

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 997

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Dauparas, J., Anishchenko, I., Bennett, N., Bai, H., Ragotte, R. J., Milles, L. F., Wicky, B. I. M., Courbet, A., de Haas, R. J., Bethel, N., Leung, P. J. Y., Huddy, T. F., Pellock, S., Tischer, D., Chan, F., Koepnick, B., Nguyen, H., Kang, A., Sankaran, B., Bera, A. K., King, N. P., & Baker, D.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
  • Wageningen University & Research (NL)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Baker, D.
ORCID
Venue
Science
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-06-04
Volume
378
Issue
6615
Pages
49-56
ISSN
0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1101/2022.06.03.494563
PMC
PMC9997061
OpenAlex
W4296032638
Cited by
2,107
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 802 · 2025: 655 · 2024: 407 · 2023: 210 · 2022: 32
FWCI
106.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DEAC02-05CH11231, DGE-214-0004, 1937533, P30 GM124169, 2140004)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (P30 GM124169-01, DE-AC02-05CH11231, GT11817)
  • U.S. Department of Energy (-AC02-05CH11231, 05CH11231, DE AC02 05CH11231, GM124169, DE-AC02-)
  • Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (g-2021-16899, DE-AC02-05CH11231)
  • Washington Research Foundation
  • Open Philanthropy Project
  • National Institutes of Health (DE-AC02–05CH11231, P30-GM124169-01, GM124169)
  • Office of Science (DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DE-AC02-05CH11231, GM124169-01, GM124169, P30GM124169)
  • Basic Energy Sciences (DE-AC02, DE-AC02-05CH11231., AC02–05CH11231)
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 › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
protein sequence design, de novo protein design, ProteinMPNN, deep learning, protein structure prediction, sequence recovery, tetrahedral nanoparticles
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Amino Acid Sequence, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Protein Engineering, Crystallography, X-Ray, Cryoelectron Microscopy

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