PreprintCited by 38Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsRNA and protein synthesis mechanisms

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Protein design using structure-based residue preferences

Open access

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41467-024-45621-4

Abstract

Recent developments in protein design have adapted large neural networks with up to 100s of millions of parameters to learn complex sequence-function mappings. However, it is unclear which dependencies between residues are critical for determining protein function, and a better empirical understanding could enable high quality models that are also more data- and resource-efficient. Here, we observe that the per residue amino acid preferences - without considering interactions between mutations are sufficient to explain much, and sometimes virtually all of the combinatorial mutation effects across 7 datasets (R 2 ∼ 78-98%), including one generated here. These preference parameters (20*N, where N is the number of mutated residues) can be learned from as few as ∼5*20*N observations to predict a much larger number (potentially up to 20 N ) of combinatorial variant effects with high accuracy (Pearson r > 0.8). We hypothesized that the local structural dependencies surrounding a residue could be sufficient to learn these required mutation preferences, and developed an unsupervised design approach, which we term CoVES for ‘ Co mbinatorial V ariant E ffects from S tructure’. We show that CoVES outperforms not just model free sampling approaches but also complicated, high-capacity autoregressive neural networks in generating functional and diverse sequence variants for two example proteins. This simple, biologically-rooted model can be an effective alternative to high-capacity, out of domain models for the design of functional proteins.

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 · 10.1101/2022.10.31.514613

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 36

  1. 10.7554/eLife.00631 · DOI
  2. 2010, Permissive secondary mutations enable the evolution of influenza oseltamivir resistance, Science (New York, N.Y.), 328, 1272, 10.1126/science.1187816 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.tig.2014.09.009 · DOI
  4. 10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80019-0 · DOI
  5. 2018, Deep generative models of genetic variation capture the effects of mutations, Nat Methods, 15, 816, 10.1038/s41592-018-0138-4 · DOI · Paper page
  6. 10.1038/s41587-022-01618-2 · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1073/pnas.2016239118 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.1101/2022.04.10.487779 · DOI
  9. Notin, P. et al. Tranception: protein fitness prediction with autoregressive transformers and inference-time retrieval. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.13760 (2022). · arXiv
  10. 10.1038/s41467-022-32007-7 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 2022, Co-evolution of interacting proteins through non-contacting and non-specific mutations, Nat Ecol Evol, 6, 590, 10.1038/s41559-022-01688-0 · DOI
  12. 10.1016/j.cell.2015.09.055 · DOI
  13. 10.7554/eLife.52760 · DOI · Paper page
  14. 10.1073/pnas.1804015115 · DOI
  15. 2019, An experimental assay of the interactions of amino acids from orthologous sequences shaping a complex fitness landscape, PLoS Genetics, 15, 1
  16. 10.1038/nature17995 · DOI · Paper page
  17. 2019, Learning the pattern of epistasis linking genotype and phenotype in a protein, Nature Communications, 10, 1
  18. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.072 · DOI
  19. 10.1261/rna.040709.113 · DOI
  20. 10.1038/s41586-022-04586-4 · DOI
  21. 2021, Deep diversification of an AAV capsid protein by machine learning, Nat Biotechnol, 39, 691, 10.1038/s41587-020-00793-4 · DOI
  22. Jing, B. , Eismann, S. , Soni, P. N. & Dror, R. O . Equivariant Graph Neural Networks for 3D Macromolecular Structure. arXiv:2106.03843 [cs, q-bio] (2021). · arXiv
  23. Townshend, R. J. L. et al. ATOM3D: Tasks On Molecules in Three Dimensions. arXiv:2012.04035 [physics, q-bio] (2021). · arXiv
  24. 10.1101/2022.06.03.494563 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Ingraham, J. , Garg, V. , Barzilay, R. & Jaakkola, T . Generative Models for Graph-Based Protein Design. 33rd Conferece on Neural Information Procssing Systems (NeurIPS 2019) 12.
  26. Tareen, A. , Posfai, A. , Ireland, W. T. , Mccandlish, D. M. & Kinney, J. B . MAVE-NN : learning genotype-phenotype maps from multiplex assays of variant effect. bioRxiv 1–19 (2020). · DOI
  27. 10.7554/eLife.32472 · DOI · Paper page
  28. 10.1101/2021.10.10.463845 · DOI
  29. 10.1038/s41588-019-0431-x · DOI
  30. 10.1038/s41588-019-0432-9 · DOI
  31. Jing, B. , Eismann, S. , Suriana, P. , Townshend, R. J. L. & Dror, R . Learning from Protein Structure with Geometric Vector Perceptrons. arXiv:2009.01411 [cs, q-bio, stat] (2021). · arXiv
  32. Stiffler, M. A. , Subramanian, S. K. , Salinas, V. H. & Ranganathan, R . A protocol for functional assessment of whole-protein saturation mutagenesis libraries utilizing high-throughput sequencing. Journal of Visualized Experiments 2016, 1–11 (2016). · DOI
  33. 10.1016/j.ab.2011.02.036 · DOI
  34. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btr507 · DOI · Paper page
  35. 10.7717/peerj.2584 · DOI
  36. Abadi, M. et al. Tensorflow: A system for large-scale machine learning. in 12th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation 265–283 (2016).

Metadata

Authors
Ding, D., Shaw, A., Sinai, S., Rollins, N., Prywes, N., Savage, D. F., Laub, M. T., & Marks, D. S.
Affiliations
  • Innovative Genomics Institute (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
  • Ding, David
  • Marks, Debora S.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2022-11-01
Volume
15
Issue
1
Pages
1639-1639
ISSN
2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392041393
Cited by
38
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 4
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Cancer Institute (R01CA260415)
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 › Molecular Biology › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
Keywords
protein design, protein variants, structure-based prediction, unsupervised learning, coves, protein function
MeSH terms
Amino Acids, Mutation, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer

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