RosettaDDGPrediction for high-throughput mutational scans: from stability to binding
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1002/pro.4527
Abstract
Reliable prediction of free energy changes upon amino acidic substitutions (ΔΔGs) is crucial to investigate their impact on protein stability and protein-protein interaction. Moreover, advances in experimental mutational scans allow high-throughput studies thanks to sophisticated multiplex techniques. On the other hand, genomics initiatives provide a large amount of data on disease-related variants that can benefit from analyses with structure-based methods. Therefore, the computational field should keep the same pace and provide new tools for fast and accurate high-throughput calculations of ΔΔGs. In this context, the Rosetta modeling suite implements effective approaches to predict the change in the folding free energy in a protein monomer upon amino acid substitutions and calculate the changes in binding free energy in protein complexes. Their application can be challenging to users without extensive experience with Rosetta. Furthermore, Rosetta protocols for ΔΔG prediction are designed considering one variant at a time, making the setup of high-throughput screenings cumbersome. For these reasons, we devised RosettaDDGPrediction, a customizable Python wrapper designed to run free energy calculations on a set of amino acid substitutions using Rosetta protocols with little intervention from the user. RosettaDDGPrediction assists with checking whether the runs are completed successfully aggregates raw data for multiple variants, and generates publication-ready graphics. We showed the potential of the tool in selected case studies, including variants of unknown significance found in children who developed cancer, proteins with known experimental unfolding ΔΔGs values, interactions between target proteins and a disordered functional motif, and phospho-mimetic variants. RosettaDDGPrediction is available, free of charge and under GNU General Public License v3.0, at https://github.com/ELELAB/RosettaDDGPrediction .
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
AlphaFold and Implications for Intrinsically Disordered Proteins
Ruff, K. M., & Pappu, R. V. (2021) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1016/j.jmb.2021.167208 · Cited by 635 · see citing works
Computational prediction of protein–protein binding affinities
Siebenmorgen, T., & Zacharias, M. (2020) · WIREs Computational Molecular Science · doi:10.1002/wcms.1448 · Cited by 184 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, more rigorous strategies are available to predict both the effect of mutations on the folding free energy and the binding free energy (Benedix et al., 2009; Kumari et al., 2014b; Seeliger & de Groot, 2010; Siebenmorgen & Zacharias, 2020).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Sora, V., Laspiur, A. O., Degn, K., Arnaudi, M., Utichi, M., Beltrame, L., De Menezes, D., Orlandi, M., Rigina, O., Sackett, P. W., Wadt, K., Schmiegelow, K., Tiberti, M., & Papaleo, E.
- Affiliations
- Danish Cancer Society (DK)
- Technical University of Denmark (DK)
- University of Copenhagen (DK)
- Corresponding author
- Papaleo, Elena
- ORCID
- Venue
- Protein Science
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2022-09-04
- Volume
- 32
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- e4527-e4527
- ISSN
- 0961-8368 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9795540
- OpenAlex
- W4310645193
- Cited by
- 90
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 31 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3
- FWCI
- 4.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc
- Locations
- Protein Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- Technical University of Denmark, DTU Orbit (Technical University of Denmark, DTU) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Kræftens Bekæmpelse (R257‐A14720)
- Børnecancerfonden (2020‐5769, 2019–5934)
- Danmarks Grundforskningsfond (DNRF125)
- Lunds Universitet
- Rigshospitalet
- Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF20OC0065262)
- Region Skåne
- LEO Fondet (LF17006)
- European Regional Development Fund
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Genomics and Rare Diseases
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Keywords
- amino acid substitutions, protein stability, protein-protein interaction, binding free energy, Python interface, variants of uncertain significance, childhood cancer, intrinsically disordered proteins, protein unfolding
- MeSH terms
- Mutation, Proteins, Software, Entropy, 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