The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 8 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Although 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, that has outstanding performance in both in silico and experimental tests. On native protein backbones, ProteinMPNN has a sequence recovery of 52.4% compared with 32.9% for Rosetta. 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. We demonstrate the broad utility and high accuracy of ProteinMPNN using x-ray crystallography, cryo–electron microscopy, and functional studies by rescuing previously failed designs, which were made using Rosetta or AlphaFold, of protein monomers, cyclic homo-oligomers, tetrahedral nanoparticles, and target-binding proteins.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
ProteinMPNN is a deep learning–based protein sequence design method that uses a message-passing neural network with order-agnostic decoding and symmetry-aware coupling to design sequences for monomers, oligomers, nanoparticles, and interfaces. It achieves higher native sequence recovery than Rosetta and rescues previously failed experimental designs across multiple protein design challenges.
Key findings
- On native protein backbones, ProteinMPNN achieved 52.4% sequence recovery versus 32.9% for Rosetta, while requiring only 1.2 seconds versus 4.3 minutes for a 100-residue protein.
- Median sequence recovery was 52% for monomers, 55% for homomers, and 51% for heteromers; recovery ranged from 90–95% in the deep core to 35% on the surface.
- Training with backbone noise improved robustness: a model trained with 0.3 Å noise generated 2–3 times more sequences with AlphaFold predictions within lDDT-Ca of 95.0 and 90.0 of the true structures than unnoised or slightly noised models.
- Experimental rescue of AlphaFold-generated designs: of 96 designs produced in E. coli, 73 were soluble (median soluble yield 247 mg/L vs. 9 mg/L for AF sequences) and 50 had the target monomeric or oligomeric state; for C5/C6 cyclic oligomers, ProteinMPNN designs were 88% soluble with 27.7% correct oligomeric state versus 40% soluble and none correct for Rosetta designs.
Methods
- ProteinMPNN is based on a message-passing neural network with 3 encoder and 3 decoder layers and 128 hidden dimensions, using backbone features including Ca-Ca distances, relative frame orientations, dihedral angles, and added N, Ca, C, O, and virtual Cb distances; edge updates and order-agnostic autoregressive decoding were introduced.
- Training used protein assemblies from the PDB (as of Aug 02, 2021) determined by X-ray crystallography or cryoEM to better than 3.5 Å resolution and with fewer than 10,000 residues, clustered at 30% sequence identity with mmseqs2, yielding 25,361 clusters; monomer training/validation used 19.7k high-resolution single-chain structures split by CATH.
- Evaluation included in silico test sets of 402 monomer backbones for Rosetta comparison and 690 monomers, 732 homomers (<2000 residues), and 98 heteromers, plus experimental characterization by E. coli expression, SEC, SEC-MALS, X-ray crystallography, cryoEM, and biolayer interferometry.
Limitations
- The paper states that in silico metrics such as native sequence recovery are sensitive to crystallographic resolution and may not correlate with proper folding; even a single residue substitution can block folding.
- The paper notes that deep learning methods lack the physical transparency of methods like Rosetta.
- The text does not include a dedicated limitations section; evident from the text, experimental validation covers selected design challenges and backbones, and not all designed sequences were structurally characterized.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
1 of 8 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we found that the AF generated sequences were mostly insoluble (median soluble yield: 9 mg per liter of culture equivalent Figure 3A).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This resulted in a sequence recovery increase from 41.2% (baseline model) to 49.0% (experiment 1), see Table 1 below”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Combining additional input features and edge updates leads to a sequence recovery of 50.5% (experiment 3).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although requiring only a small fraction of the compute time (1.2 seconds versus 4.3 minutes for 100 residues)”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“ProteinMPNN solves sequence design problems in a small fraction of the time (1.2 sec vs 258.8 sec on a single CPU for a 100 residue protein) required for physically based approaches such as Rosetta”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“found that performance saturated at 32–48 neighbors.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“sequences encoded by noised ProteinMPNN models are more accurately decoded into 3D coordinates by AlphaFold”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with improvements across the full range of residue burial from protein core to surface”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a model trained with 0.3Å noise generated 2–3 times more sequences with AlphaFold predictions within lDDT-Ca (14) of 95.0 and 90.0 of the true structures than unnoised or slightly noised models (Figure 2C).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The accuracy was particularly high in the central core of the structure, with sidechains predicted using AlphaFold from the ProteinMPNN sequence fitting nearly perfectly into the electron density (Figure 3D).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the strength of the single sequence to structure mapping, as assessed by AlphaFold, was higher for models trained with additional backbone noise.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- Probably not a substantial claim. 3
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Machine learning sequence design approaches have been developed previously (1–6, 6a), notably the previously described message passing method on which ProteinMPNN is based, but have focused on the monomer design problem, achieve lower native sequence recoveries, and with the exception of a TIM barrel design study (6) have not been extensively validated using crystallography and cryoEM to evaluate”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 1–6, 6a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Partly supportedcites [6] Anand N, Eguchi R, Mathews II, Perez CP, Derry A, Altman RB, & Huang PS (2022). Protein sequence design with a learned potential. Nature communications, 13(1), 1– 11. PMC8826426 35136054 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Whereas only a small fraction of the original Rosetta designed sequences were predicted to fold to the design target structures, following ProteinMPNN redesign the majority were confidently predicted to fold to close to the design target structures (Figure 2F).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“unconstrained design without symmetry, averaged probabilities, and averaged logits resulted in 52%, 53%, and 55% median sequence recoveries respectively (Figure S1C).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The median overall sequences recoveries were 52% for monomers, 55% for homomers, and 51% for heteromers (Figure 2B).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many of the proteins were highly thermo-stable, with secondary structure being maintained up to 95 °C (Figure 3B).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The alpha-beta protein structure contains 5 beta strands and 4 alpha helices, and is close to the design target backbone (2.35 Å over 130 residues)”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“of 96 designs produced in E. coli, 73 were expressed solubly (median soluble yield: 247 mg per liter of culture equivalent, Figure 3A) and 50 had the target monomeric or oligomeric state as assessed by SEC (Figure 3A,C).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“training models on backbones to which Gaussian noise (std=0.02Å) had been added improved sequence recovery on confident protein structure models generated by AlphaFold (average pLDDT>80.0) from UniRef50, while the sequence recovery on unperturbed PDB structures decreased as expected (Table 1).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Biolayer interferometry experiments showed strong binding to the Grb2 SH3 domain (Figure 4B), with considerably higher signal than the free proline rich peptide; point mutations predicted to disrupt the design completely eliminated the binding signal.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
In the paper
“ProteinMPNN designs also have a much higher propensity to crystallize, greatly facilitating structure determination of designed proteins.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wicky et al.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Rosetta designed set, 40% were soluble and none had the correct oligomeric state confirmed by SEC-MALS. For the ProteinMPNN designed set, 88% were soluble and 27.7% had the correct oligomeric state.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Experimental evaluation of ProteinMPNN
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“they are trained directly to find the most probable amino acid for a protein backbone given all the examples in the PDB, and hence such ambiguities do not arise, making sequence design more robust and less dependent on the judgement of a human expert.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In traditional physically based approaches, sequence design maps to the problem of identifying an amino acid sequence whose lowest energy state is the desired structure.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the methods described thus far are limited in their applicability to the wide range of current protein design challenges, and have not been extensively validated experimentally.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 1–6, 6a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Recently deep learning approaches have shown considerable promise in rapidly generating plausible amino acid sequences given monomeric protein backbones without need for compute intensive explicit consideration of sidechain rotameric states (1–6, 6a).”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 1–6, 6a
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“AlphaFold (9) and RoseTTAfold (13) produce remarkably good structure predictions for native proteins given multiple sequence alignments which can contain substantial co-evolutionary and other information reflecting aspects of the 3D structure, but generally produce much poorer structures when provided only with a single sequence.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Training with backbone noise improves model performance for protein design
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] Uria B, Murray I, & Larochelle H (2014, January). A deep and tractable density estimator. In International Conference on Machine Learning (pp. 467– 475). PMLR. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [13] Leman JK, Weitzner BD, Lewis SM, Adolf-Bryfogle J, Alam N, Alford RF, … & Bonneau R (2020). Macromolecular modeling and design in Rosetta: recent methods and frameworks. Nature methods, 17(7), 665– 680. PMC7603796 32483333 source
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“locally connected graph neural networks can be used to model the structure to sequence mapping problem because protein backbones provide a notion of local neighborhoods which primarily determine sequence identities.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Abstract
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is, however, computationally intractable as it requires computing energies over all possible structures, including unwanted oligomeric and aggregated states”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ProteinMPNN requires no expert customization for specific design challenges, and it should thus make protein design more broadly accessible.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In silico metrics such as native sequence recovery are very sensitive to crystallographic resolution (Figure S3 B, C) and may not correlate with proper folding”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“instead Rosetta and other approaches as a proxy carry out a search for the lowest energy sequence for a given backbone structure, and structure prediction calculations are required in a second step to confirm that there are no other structures in which the sequence has still lower energy.”
§ Robust deep learning based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN > Conclusion
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Evolution in most cases does not optimize for stability.
“as evolution in most cases does not optimize for stability”
The paper relies on this without support.
The backbones of previously failed designs are correct and designable targets, so failure was due to the sequence.
“we kept the backbones of the original designs fixed but discarded the original sequences and generated new ones using ProteinMPNN.”
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?
In the citing paper
“Second, protein design models have shown that new folds can be successfully predicted beyond the structural landscape explored by nature.249”
From Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation via Multiomics Profiling and Artificial Intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [249]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
CATH citation points to the wrong reference
MinorThe text cites reference 7 for CATH, but the CATH paper is listed as reference 8. Reference 7 is a different paper.
“the PDB split based on the CATH (7) protein classification”
“8. Orengo CA, Michie AD, Jones S, Jones DT, Swindells MB, & Thornton JM (1997). CATH–a hierarchic classification of protein domain structures.”
Citations
Cites
Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, L., & Polosukhin, I. (2017) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1706.03762 · Cited by 120,404
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
(2014) · Cited by 33,419
Rethinking the Inception Architecture for Computer Vision
Szegedy, C., Vanhoucke, V., Ioffe, S., Shlens, J., & Wojna, Z. (2016) · 2016 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR) · doi:10.1109/cvpr.2016.308 · Cited by 32,138
PyTorch: An Imperative Style, High-Performance Deep Learning Library
Paszke, A., Gross, S., Massa, F., Lerer, A., Bradbury, J., Chanan, G., Killeen, T., Lin, Z., Gimelshein, N., Antiga, L., et al. (2019) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1912.01703 · Cited by 31,473
Coot : model-building tools for molecular graphics
Emsley, P., & Cowtan, K. (2004) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444904019158 · Cited by 30,571
PHENIX : a comprehensive Python-based system for macromolecular structure solution
Adams, P. D., Afonine, P. V., Bunkóczi, G., Chen, V. B., Davis, I. W., Echols, N., Headd, J. J., Hung, L.-W., Kapral, G. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., et al. (2010) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444909052925 · Cited by 23,716
Phaser crystallographic software
McCoy, A. J., Grosse-Kunstleve, R. W., Adams, P. D., Winn, M. D., Storoni, L. C., & Read, R. J. (2007) · Journal of Applied Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0021889807021206 · Cited by 20,612
Kabsch, W. (2010) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444909047337 · Cited by 16,463
Overview of the CCP 4 suite and current developments
Winn, M. D., Ballard, C. C., Cowtan, K. D., Dodson, E. J., Emsley, P., Evans, P. R., Keegan, R. M., Krissinel, E. B., Leslie, A. G. W., McCoy, A., et al. (2011) · Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography · doi:10.1107/s0907444910045749 · Cited by 12,353
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,701–1,800 of 2,091
Simple baselines rival protein language models in dense combinatorial protein landscapesPreprint
Talpir, I., & Fleishman, S. J. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.01.722313 · Cited by 2
Protein Structure Data and Precise Predictions Pave the Way for Molecular Design
Yamada, Y., Taguchi, M., & Nango, E. (2026) · Journal of Synthetic Organic Chemistry Japan · doi:10.5059/yukigoseikyokaishi.84.482
Akingbola, A., Adegbesan, A., Adewole, O. A., Adebiyi, K. O., Benson, A. E., Ojo, O., Jessica, O. U., Alabi, O. S., Ojeriakhi, O. J., & Shekoni, M. (2026) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2026.1773609
Computational design of membrane fusion proteinsPreprint
Somiya, M., Funk, S., Zambrano, D. E., Yanase, T., Hamaoka, N., Kang, A., Sankaran, B., Bera, A. K., & King, N. P. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.04.722779
Self-citationShuqin, Z., Maddipatla, A., Vedula, S., Bronstein, A. M., & Marx, A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.07.721674
Roy, R. S., Oh, J., Abeer, A. N. M. N., Giraldo, M. I., Ikegami, T., Weaver, S. C., Vasilakis, N., Yoon, B.-J., & Qian, X. (2026) · NAR Molecular Medicine · doi:10.1093/narmme/ugag024 · Cited by 1
Artificial intelligence-driven nanomaterials for tumor-targeted therapy
Liao, Z., Liang, H., & Siman, F. (2026) · Journal of Pharmacy and Allied Medicine · doi:10.58985/jpam.2026.v04i01.43
Computational Rational Design of Larger AAV Icosahedral CapsidsPreprint
Cioffi, M., & Luque, A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.09.724008
Microbial biosynthesis of stilbenoids: A comprehensive review
Sun, S., Zhang, A., Zhang, R., & Liu, X. (2026) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2026.108922
Autoresearch Discovery of Interpretable Filter Rules for Antibody Binder ClassificationPreprint
Landajuela, M. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.05.723069
Lo, Y., Chang, K., Chu, I.-H., Chen, L.-Y., & Wu, K. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70617
Redesign of energetically frustrated regions rescues function in defective T4 clamp loaders
Nimkar, S., Nguyen, T., Karandur, D., Subramanian, S., O’Donnell, M. E., & Kuriyan, J. (2026) · Molecular Biology and Evolution · doi:10.1093/molbev/msag204 · Cited by 1
Kell, D. B., & Roberts, I. (2026) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d5cs01387a
Complementarity of Deep Learning and Physics-Based Approaches in the Design of New Antibodies
Eshak, F., & Goupil-Lamy, A. (2026) · Methods in molecular biology · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-5041-7_2
Zhang, L., Yan, W., Wang, D., & Ma, J. (2026) · Journal of Orthopaedic Translation · doi:10.1016/j.jot.2026.101118
Understanding cell wall enzyme function: from classical approaches to new biotechnology
Edwards, M., Qiande, M., Vargas, A. D. G., Jacobson, T., Spicer, R. L., Lin, A., Xie, W. J., & Voiniciuc, C. (2026) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/erag227
Liao, K.-J., & Sun, Y.-J. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag233
Zhang, Y., Zhang, X., Chen, X., Chen, J., 孔令聪, & Ma, H. (2026) · European Journal of Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.ejmech.2026.119279
Advancing knotted protein design with ESM3: guided generation and topological insights
Marsalkova, E., & Šimeček, P. (2026) · Machine Learning Health · doi:10.1088/3049-477x/aea330
Dai, W., Hu, W., Schuster, M., Rožić, L., Roschitzki, B., & Zerbe, O. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70626
ProtSATT: An Advanced Protein Solubility Predictor Based on Attention Mechanism
Deng, W., Chen, Z., Ji, C., Gao, J., Xu, H., & Huang, J. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c00821
Control of Guanine Exchange Factor Activity Using De Novo Designed Protein InhibitorsPreprint
Vacca, F., Marston, D. J., Harris, C., Kannan, P., Burre, H., Christopher, J., Dumbravanu, I., & Azoitei, M. L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.17.725778
Redesign to Mechanism: Interpretable AI Reveals Determinants of Protein Hydrate Binding
Zhang, N., Ba, T., Li, Y., Liu, J., & Zhang, L.-R. (2026) · The Journal of Physical Chemistry Letters · doi:10.1021/acs.jpclett.6c00954
Hardy, B. J., Mellor, C., Curnow, P., & Anderson, J. L. R. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-21135-4_12
Combinatorial Optimization of Antibody Libraries via Constrained Integer Programming
Hayes, C., Goncalves, A. R., Magana-Zook, S. A., Pettit, J., Solak, A. C., Faissol, D., & Landajuela, M. (2026) · Adaptive Agents and Multi-Agents Systems · doi:10.65109/dugn7746
Zhu, Y., & Rahman, T. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.22.727127
Selective protein-based separation of critical elements from mine wastes
Webster, L. J., Gillane, R., Daumann, L. J., Gumulya, Y., & Gómez, D. K. V. (2026) · Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology · doi:10.1007/s11157-026-09783-5
Dai, Z., Liang, Y., Yang, T., Xiong, X., Yue, Z., Pan, Z., Wang, Z., & Xu, W. (2026) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2026.152719
Modeling the Language of Codons with Artificial Intelligence
Lemay-St-Denis, C., & Kolodny, R. (2026) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-092624-105741
Pei, T., Chen, Q.-Y., Wang, X., Ma, A. T., Liang, J.-X., Ye, Z.-Y., Liu, Y.-Z., Su, J.-T., Liang, X., An, Y., et al. (2026) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-026-73608-w
Mullick, A., Daoutidis, P., & Hackel, B. J. (2026) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag718
De novo design of binder proteins targeting Helicobacter pylori adhesin BabAPreprint
Zhu, Y., Isah, M. B., & Zhang, X. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.24.727452
Objective curriculum-guided design of multi-property proteinsPreprint
Liu, L., Zhao, J., Xie, X., Xu, S., Ren, M., Zhang, X., He, Z., Liu, F., Yu, C., Wang, K., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.05.25.727596
Fourier vs. Attention: A Re-look at Protein Sequence Generation Models
Shah, R. R., Jawagal, R. K., Rajpurohit, S., Venkat, N., Achyuthan, N., & Das, B. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-26028-4_2
Tools For Building Artificial Biological Nanostructures
Bradford, T. S., Hutchings, S., Liston, J. D., Pakosz, Z., Sanderson, A., Shaukat, A., Bentham, A. R., Lin, T., Stępień, P., & Heddle, J. G. (2026) · ACS Nano · doi:10.1021/acsnano.5c14315
Chuang, J.-N., Purcell, J., Sangalli, L., Rosenbluh, J., Knott, G. J., Corrie, S. R., & Garnier, G. (2026) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2026.1829373
In silico prediction tools of plant-based precision medicine
Bakshi, A., & Datla, R. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-34129-8.00004-3
Wang, T., Liao, S., Qi, Y., & Zhang, Z. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c00363
Design and Structure of Protein Cages Based on Helical Fusion and Machine Learning
Segundo‐Acosta, P. S., Coq, J. L., Boskovic, J., Aglietti, R. A., Bowers, P., Yeates, T. O., & Castells‐Graells, R. (2026) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.6c11491
InversePep: Diffusion-driven structure-based inverse folding for functional peptides
Chilakamarri, S. K., Kasturi, S. R., Yerrabandla, S. P. R., Gogte, S., & Kondaparthi, V. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag277
Zhao, H., Tan, J., Tang, T., & Dai, S. (2026) · TrAC Trends in Analytical Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.trac.2026.118932
Chakraborty, R., Pettit, J., Silva, M., Mcloughlin, K., Lyon, E. Z. A., Kruse, C. P. S., Quackenbush, C. R., Nemashkalo, A., Kunde, Y. A., Solomon, E. A., et al. (2026) · Machine Learning Health · doi:10.1088/3049-477x/ae7573
From Single Cells to Silicon: Emerging Technologies Transforming Monoclonal Antibody Discovery
Sherwood, V., Harold, D., O’Kennedy, R. J., Loscher, C., & Leonard, P. (2026) · Antibodies · doi:10.3390/antib15030047
Discovery of TCR-like antibodies to the KRAS G12D neoantigen via in silico-in vitro workflow
Ahn, S., Oh, T.-S., Suh, S., Jeon, J. H., Lah, S., Ryu, K., Choi, S., Kim, H., Lee, E. G., Lee, H., et al. (2026) · Molecular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2026.05.032
Improving the Activity of Phi29 DNA Polymerase by SaProt Prediction
Zhu, Q., Liu, M., Peng, X., Zhou, C., Gong, Y., Zhang, A., Chen, S., Zhou, J., Zhang, M., Wu, Y., et al. (2026) · Chemistry - A European Journal · doi:10.1002/chem.71224
Scaffolding Protein Mimics Using a DNA NanostructurePreprint
Sleiman, H. F., Zhao, F., Yang, T. P., Saliba, D., Das, T., Asohan, J., & Guarné, A. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7348237/v1
Generative design of programmable asymmetric β-barrel nanoporesPreprint
Philomin, A., Sonigra, R., Majumder, S., Lin, H.-J., Li, Y., Xue, F., Kibler, R. D., Baldus, C. K., Trapido, E., Medeiros, A., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.04.729630
Self-citationMiao, Z., Zhu, S., Qin, L., Ma, D., Lai, M., Xu, P., Jin, Y., Cai, H., Zhao, S., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules31111969
From prediction to discovery: AI as an observatory of physical organization in protein space
Zheng, Y., Zhang, Z., Wang, Y., Kang, W., Ren, W., & Tang, Q.-Y. (2026) · AI for Science · doi:10.1088/3050-287x/ae78ea
Tzuri, N., Kass, I., Orenstein, Y., & Papo, N. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70660
Robust Multi-Mutant Protein Stability Prediction from a Fine-Tuned Evolutionary Scale ModelPreprint
Reeves, S., & Kalyaanamoorthy, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.04.730231
pLM-Guided Inverse Folding for Antibody Sequence DesignPreprint
Noske, V., Koulischer, F., Marchal, K., & Demeester, T. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.04.730089
Graph-Based Diffusion Enables Interface-Aware Sequence-Structure Co-design of Protein Complexes
He, J., Zheng, W., & Fu, B. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-1465-5_41
Multi-objective antibody design and optimization using machine learning
Kuo, Y., Brown, C. N., Akin, E., Xie, Y., & Tessier, P. M. (2026) · Nature Reviews Bioengineering · doi:10.1038/s44222-026-00444-4
Void-X: A generative void-filling model for predicting atomic packing in proteins
Yang, J., Yuan, J., & Chou, J. J. (2026) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2607035123
Ming, K., Hu, Y., Xing, B., Chen, M., Chen, Y., Chen, X., Geng, M., Wu, Z., Liu, Y., Wei, L., et al. (2026) · Materials Today Bio · doi:10.1016/j.mtbio.2026.103336
Atomic insights into the physiological and functional diversity of NMDA receptors
(134879), K. X., Wu, S., & Zhu, S. (2026) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2026.05.004 · Cited by 1
Reddy, S. T. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.730844
Discriminator‐Guided Inverse Folding for Multi‐Property Protein Design
Zheng, Y., Liu, C., Liu, Z., Su, M., Tang, C., Zheng, X., Zhang, H., & Li, J. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.75988
Accurate de novo design of peptides from programming biophysical landscapePreprint
Li, M., Liu, Y., Zhong, J., Shi, X., Zheng, J., Wang, K., Yunxia, C., Cheng, C., Li, S., Kong, X., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.731011
EditorForge: An Active-Site-Aware Framework for Inverse-Folding-Based Protein RedesignPreprint
Chen, A., Siddiqui, J., Taucar, W., Tiralongo, L., Tkachenko, M., Xu, A., Bawa, S., Guo, S., Pinska, O., Rim, J., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.730993
Sadykov, Z., Khamidullina, A., Sultankulov, B., & Seitkali, D. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.08.730711
HalluDesign-NA: Extending HalluDesign for De Novo Nucleic Acid DesignPreprint
Fang, M., Wang, Z., & Cao, L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.10.730767
MAHLER: Integrating Metadynamics and Inverse Folding to Predict Antibody-Antigen KineticsPreprint
Teng, D., Pitman, M., Jha, P. K., Sood, A., Rufa, D. A., Ryczko, K., Bortolato, A., & Tiwary, P. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.10.731383
Differences between protein fitness models can be used to design variants of altered specificityPreprint
Berry, S. P., Gaudet, R., & Marks, D. S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.10.731299
Generative design of antigen-specific T-cell receptor sequences with a conditional diffusion modelPreprint
Zhang, Y., Liang, W., 许舒婷, Witney, M. J., Su, X., Andrews, M. C., Rossjohn, J., Purcell, A. W., Wang, F., & Song, J. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.10.730756
Physics‐Based Energy Functions for Computational Protein Design
Gaillard, T. (2026) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.70147
De novo design of microprotein in neurodegenerative diseases
Das, A. K., & Borah, M. (2026) · Discover Molecules · doi:10.1007/s44345-026-00058-8
Membrane Protein Design: From Reprogramming Functions to AI-Guided De Novo Design Approaches
Roberts, J., & Barth, P. (2026) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c01105
Sio, J. S., Loo, W. X. W., Loo, Y. S., Tan, W. X., Lim, H. X., Liu, H., & Ng, C. S. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.76118
Synzymes 2.0: Engineering catalytic function with artificial intelligence and advanced materials
Mohammad, S. F., Ali, F., & Shynara, M. (2026) · Biocatalysis and Biotransformation · doi:10.1080/10242422.2026.2688362
Han, Y., Guo, W., Sun, L., Du, S., Li, F., Wang, T., & Zhu, C. (2026) · Engineering in Life Sciences · doi:10.48130/els-0026-0002
De novo design of protein binders that target DELE1 to inhibit the mitochondrial stress responsePreprint
Yang, R., Zheng, K., Metts, M., Wang, Y., Danyan, Y. I. N., Li, K. P., Prazmowska, A. A., Kashatus, D. F., Kuhlman, B. A., & Yang, J. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.111905
Srinivas, P., Adebomi, V., Markiewicz, S. M., Wang, K., Chac, D., Lindenauer, K., Huber, N., Tao, Z., Luong, P., Rettie, S., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.22.733822
Self-citationSivasubramani, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.09.730151
Precision fermentation of terpenes: tackling bottlenecks at enzyme, pathway, and bioprocess levels
Scipion, C. P. M., Lin, F., & Chen, X. (2026) · Critical Insights in Biotechnology · doi:10.1080/29932238.2026.2684112
Multistep generative backmapping of coarse-grained structures
Kementzidis, G., Wong, E., Nicholson, J., Xu, R., & Deng, Y. (2026) · Computer Physics Communications · doi:10.1016/j.cpc.2026.110286
Editorial: Advances in protein structure biology – use of AI and beyond
Pal, A., Filippidi, E., & Dey, S. (2026) · Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences · doi:10.3389/fmolb.2026.1903318
X, S., Li, Y., Zhou, Q., Tang, R., Wang, Z., & Li, T. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.6999578
Computational Redesign of an Antifreeze Protein Using Deep LearningPreprint
Calia, C. N., Altunc, A. J., Eufemio, R. J., Alvarado, B. O., Huynh, J. D., Oh, E., Burkart, M. D., Meister, K., & Paesani, F. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.21.733612
Induced Estrogen Receptor SUMOylation drives SERD activityPreprint
Hinterndorfer, M., Schätz, C., Schmitt, S., Schoenlein, M., Hoi, D. M., Kręcioch, I., Frommelt, F., Shlei, M., Kater, L., Pačesa, M., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.26.734426
Begum, A., Manisha, D. R. L., & Sudhakar, M. (2026) · International Journal of Research and Review · doi:10.52403/ijrr.20260610
Gut, J. A., Kleinschmidt, N., & Lemmin, T. (2026) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag605
Di, H., Shi, D., Sun, Y., Niu, Y., Zhao, B., Cao, P., & Xu, Y. (2026) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2026.178898
Coluzza, I. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-99507-8.00090-1
AI-enabled rhodopsin design for blue-light enhanced bacterial growthPreprint
Saeed, H., Lewis, M., Fujiwara, T., Huang, J., Konno, M., Kaho, M. O. R. I., Yoshizawa, S., Inoue, K., Pan, T., Wang, Y., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.29.735265
Bogdanova, E. A., Chernukhin, A. V., & Shaytan, A. К. (2026) · International Journal of Molecular Sciences · doi:10.3390/ijms27135925
Function-guided design of active enzymesPreprint
Hu, M., Wu, L., Yang, Y., Li, F., & Zhu, L. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.06.27.735025
Nanobodies against Plasmodium adhesins that block receptor engagement and malaria parasite invasion
Sa, J. D., Chmielewski, J., Adair, A., Tan, L. L., Chan, L., Krauss, L., Zeglinski, K., Gouil, Q. A., Chen, J., Jackson, C. J., et al. (2026) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bcj20260354
Targeting the Undruggable: Deep Learning-Driven Design of Peptide Therapeutics in Cancer
Nguyen, H. T. N., Le, B. H. N., Van, N. T. H., Tran, T. T. T., & Nguyen, T. M. (2026) · Pharmaceuticals · doi:10.3390/ph19070998
Self-citationLiu, Q., Hu, Z., Ouyang, B., Zhao, W., Zhao, J., Hong, M., Zhao, X., & Wei, D. (2026) · Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2026.117193
Expanding all-α-helical protein space through rational computational designPreprint
Albanese, K. I., Chubb, J. J., Gutierrez-Rus, L. I., Leng, X., Kurgan, K. W., Mylemans, B., Ożga, K., Petrenas, R., Romanyuk, A. V., Acevedo‐Jake, A. M., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.03.736327
Computational design of microbial cell factories for sustainable biomanufacturing
Liu, L., Li, C., & Li, F. (2026) · Green Energy & Environment · doi:10.1016/j.gee.2026.07.001
Beyond the structure-function paradigm: A comprehensive review of intrinsically disordered proteins
Harake, S. N. A., Btadini, S., Qadri, A. H., Harb, F., & Faheem, I. (2026) · Biochemistry and Biophysics Reports · doi:10.1016/j.bbrep.2026.102706
Wang, H., Hua, T., Wang, M., Meng, B., Zhang, Y., Jiang, C., Gao, Y., Yang, H., & Bo, J. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.76202 · Cited by 1
Wei, Y., Eberini, I., & Meyer, F. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.04.736494
Trust Without Safeguards: A Red-Teaming Study of ProteinMPNN in Open Protein Design Pipelines
Pope, T., & Patooghy, A. (2026) · International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks workshops · doi:10.1109/dsn-w70714.2026.00040
What will be the future of computational biology for macromolecules in the era of AI?
Elofsson, A., & Ben‐Tal, N. (2026) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1014467
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
- Published
- 2022-10-07
- Volume
- 378
- Issue
- 6615
- Pages
- 49-56
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- PMC
- PMC9997061
- OpenAlex
- W4296032638
- Semantic Scholar
- 98926d43356e87c22c82efc132dcaaac1ff40ebe
- Cited by
- 2,210
- References
- 35
- Citations by year
- 2026: 927 · 2025: 660 · 2024: 391 · 2023: 201 · 2022: 29
- FWCI
- 94.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion, 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)
- Office of Science (DEAC02–05CH11231, AC02-05CH11231, DE-AC02)
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (DE-AC02-05CH11231, GM124169-01, 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, sequence recovery, protein structure prediction
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
