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 1,801–1,900 of 2,091
Deep mutational scanning of SARS ‐ CoV ‐2 nucleocapsid reveals regional stability patterns
Keith, A. D., Keen, M. M., Frank, F., & Ortlund, E. A. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70706
Tomita, N., & Chikenji, G. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70717
Liu, P., Xi, Y., Deng, J., Luo, S., Liu, T., Ding, C., Zhu, Q., Lp, H., Li, M., Wang, N., et al. (2026) · Protein & Cell · doi:10.1093/procel/pwag046
Zhang, K. (2026) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-10307155/v1
Dhande, S. S., Mankoskar, N. A., Panakkal, H., Gupta, I. R., & Bhagat, R. P. (2026) · Biotechnology and Bioengineering · doi:10.1002/bit.70306
Useini, A., Feng, Y., Kaczmarek, I., Künze, G., Thor, D., & Schöneberg, T. (2026) · Journal of Biological Chemistry · doi:10.1016/j.jbc.2026.113323
Microbial Synthesis of Daphnetin by Engineering 2-Oxoglutarate-Dependent Dioxygenases
Ji, S., Xie, C., Wang, Y., Sun, M., Dai, J., Du, Y., Shen, X., Wang, J., Yin, Q., Sun, X., et al. (2026) · ACS Synthetic Biology · doi:10.1021/acssynbio.6c00300
Selective miniprotein inhibitors of Aurora-A kinase designed using interaction-motif scaffoldingPreprint
Miles, J. A., Schiffrin, B., Holder, J. W., Wallis, E. J., Manfield, I. W., Burnap, S. A., Struwe, W. B., Gergely, F. V., & Bayliss, R. W. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.12.737516
De Novo Synthesis in Cancer Immunotherapy: Applications and Prospects
Yang, J., Wu, Y., & Luo, J. (2026) · MedComm · doi:10.1002/mco2.70847
Deep Learning Models Capture Umbrella Sampling-Derived Energetic Trends: A Troponin C Case Study
Narayanasamy, A., Moretti, R., Meiler, J., & Lindert, S. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01925
Protein Design and Synthetic Biology
Wipat, A., & Hallinan, J. S. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-11023-7_5
(2026) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-026-01031-8
De novo design of ligand binding and sensing with a physics based generative approachPreprint
Zhang, Y., Ke, Y., Zhi, R., Jin, Q., Feng, Y., Wang, C., Fang, M., Liao, J., Chen, D., Liu, J., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.13.738243
State-selective inhibition of alpha-synuclein aggregation by de novo oligomer-binding proteinsPreprint
Zhang, Y., Han, H. L., Ortigosa-Pascual, L., Miles, U. Z., Wei, J., Berkowicz, L. E., Snow, F., Tu, D., Meisl, G., Sansaria, S., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.13.738012 · Cited by 1
Next-Generation Food Enzymology: From Metagenomic Discovery to AI-Driven Biocatalyst Design
Schwartz, M., Ladeira, R., Neiers, F., Nicolaı̈, A., Hocquet, D., & Loupiac, C. (2026) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.6c04349
CatIF-RL: Activity-Oriented Enzyme Sequence Design by Steered Inverse Protein Folding
Li, Y., Xiong, J., Zhang, Y., Cai, T., Fu, C., Li, S., Xu, W., Lyu, R., Chen, Z., Guo, Z., et al. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01587 · Cited by 1
Zhao, W., Pan, X., Yang, W., LIU, Z., Wei, X., Lin, A., Tang, B., Zhang, L., Xiao, M., Zeng, Q., et al. (2026) · Probiotics and Antimicrobial Proteins · doi:10.1007/s12602-026-11131-6
De Novo Design of Protein Nanopores: From Minimal Peptides to AI-Driven Design
Vorobieva, A. A., Samanta, R., & Thillo, T. V. (2026) · Chemical Reviews · doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.5c00990
AI protein design: constructing superstable proteins via maximized hydrogen bonding
张, 文. (2026) · Scientia Sinica Chimica · doi:10.1360/ssc-2026-0063
Qian, G., Wang, Y., Yan, M., Liu, N., Hou, Z., Wang, H., Pan, S., Qiao, Y., Lv, Y., Li, Y., et al. (2026) · Trends in Food Science & Technology · doi:10.1016/j.tifs.2026.105941
Wei, Y., Sun, Y., Bang, J. K., & Kim, W. J. (2026) · Insect Molecular Biology · doi:10.1111/imb.70064
Wang, T. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.7008958
Intelligent antigen design combined with yeast display enhances targeted immune responses
Ma, Y.-F., Yin, G.-H., Pan, Y. L., & Liu, Y. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag393
Epistatic Modulation of Sec/Cys Catalysis in GPX6 Revealed by EVB Free-Energy Landscapes
Das, N., Baladhye, V., Villà-Freixa, J., & Villà-Freixa, J. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01502
Kumar, R., Muthuramalingam, P., Tiwari, S., Gupta, J., Gupta, R., Agarwal, P., Yadav, H., Kumar, N., Rawat, J. M., Ravi, K., et al. (2026) · Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal · doi:10.34133/csbj.0199
De Novo Design of Protein Switches with Diffusion-Based Ensemble SamplingPreprint
Omidi, A., He, J., Bui, J. M., Gsponer, J., & Syed, S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.20.739027
Ahn, W., Son, M.-J., Kim, J.-R., Go, S.-R., Kang, J. Y., Park, J., Lee, Y., Lee, S. H., Kim, J., Jung, J., et al. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.20.739581
Shen, J., Bai, H., Lu, H., Li, D., Xie, Y., Zhang, M., Zhang, X., Zhu, Q., Liu, Y., Shen, C., et al. (2026) · Microchemical Journal · doi:10.1016/j.microc.2026.119158
Self-citationWen, Q., Li, H., Wang, W., Yan, Z., Yang, P., Liu, D. K., Zhuang, W., Zheng, C., & Ying, H. (2026) · Biotechnology Letters · doi:10.1007/s10529-026-03756-y
De novo design of proteinaceous binders targeting the LEDGF PWWP domain
Vantieghem, T., Delepine, J., Noppen, S., Beelen, S., Drexler, M., Holková, J., Houser, J., Veverka, V., Schols, D., & Strelkov, S. V. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70726
Zhu, Y., Yang, X., Isah, M. B., & Zhang, X. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.23.740294
Huang, Y., Wang, J. Q., Yang, L., & Gong, X. (2026) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag552
Luo, L., Zhang, S. Y., Zhou, J., Gao, Y., Liu, Z., Wang, M., Osire, T., Long, M., & Fan, Y. (2026) · International Journal of Biological Macromolecules · doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2026.153764
Han, M., Feng, J., Rong, X., Ye, Y., Jiao, X., Shang, L., Zhang, W., Zhao, Y., Qi, W. D., Su, R., et al. (2026) · Langmuir · doi:10.1021/acs.langmuir.6c01598
Nicotiana benthamiana: From model plant to biofactory chassis
Wang, X., Xie, X., Chen, G., Huang, Y., Zhang, J., & Cao, P. (2026) · Model Organisms Research · doi:10.1016/j.mores.2026.100011
Agentic and Generative AI for Drug Discovery
Silberg, J., Eckmann, P., Boen, J., & Zou, J. (2026) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.126.080880
Where next for structural bioinformatics?
Greener, J. G. (2026) · PLoS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3003903
一アミノ酸の違いが拓く新たな地平：PRMT1変異の生物学的意義
Yao, Y., & ヨウ, エ. (2025) · Institutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · doi:10.15068/0002021275
Zhang, Z., Cao, R., Sun, J., Chen, L., Xiang, L., Shen, Z., Lv, B., Qin, L., & Li, C. (2026) · Chinese Journal of Chemical Engineering · doi:10.1016/j.cjche.2026.07.004
Escaping our own biases: AI, scientific reasoning, and discovery in molecular biology
Costa, T. R. D., & Penades José, R. (2026) · Molecular Cell · doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2026.07.002
Ab2Nb: A Physics-Guided Framework for Converting Antibodies into Nanobodies
Wu, S., Li, H., Ma, J., Qian, J., Liang, Z., Tang, S., Hu, Y., & Huang, J. (2026) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-31927-2_47
Yoon, H., Han, R., Kim, J.-W., & Lee, Y. (2026) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbag421
Quaternionic response geometry for proteins: toward a noncommutative theory of ordered deformations
Chen, X., Kam, C., Li, Y., Medina-Ortiz, D., Damour, C., Chabriat, J. P., Miranville, A., Bessafi, M., & Cadet, F. (2026) · Theory in Biosciences · doi:10.1007/s12064-026-00494-7
Benchmarking Deep Learning Predictions of Mutation-Induced Fold SwitchingPreprint
Felbinger, N. R., Carillo, K. J., Chen, Y., Orban, J. P., & Pierce, B. G. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.02.742283
HaloMPNN: retraining ProteinMPNN on halophilic proteomes for salt-tolerant enzyme designPreprint
Lee, A. L., Seamann, A., Chung, G., Zhao, C., Maddamsetti, R., & Khare, S. D. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.02.742362
Predicting Enzyme pH Optima from Structure Using Equivariant Graph Neural Networks
SinhaRoy, R., Clauss, C., Ivanikov, I., & Kuenze, G. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01482
Marrogi, E., Nichols, A. L., Lester, H. A., & Muthusamy, A. K. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.04.742673
Hu, R.-E., & Ng, I. (2026) · Chemical Engineering Journal · doi:10.1016/j.cej.2026.180351
Rabinowitz, S., Nigam, P., Santolla, N., & Ford, C. T. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.03.742168
Progress in Protein Nanoparticle Vaccines for Human Viral Diseases
He, Y., Wang, J., Li, J., Shen, D., Mao, J., Zhang, Y., Cao, S., Deng, Y., & Gao, X. (2026) · ACS Omega · doi:10.1021/acsomega.6c03523
Liu, Y., Zhang, J., & Li, M. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70728
Schulze, M., Opdensteinen, P., Albert, S., Gabriel, N., Demeter, C. M., Buyel, J. F., & Nausch, H. (2026) · New Biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.nbt.2026.08.002
Li, M., Cheng, X., Jiang, F., Hong, L., & Yu, Y. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.07.29.741631
The Autonomous AI Scientist of 2030 Needs Inferential Arbitrage
Shehu, A. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3818657
Larda, S. T., Paré, A., & Doucet, N. (2026) · Protein Science · doi:10.1002/pro.70733
Priti, K., Chandra, H., & Sagar, K. (2026) · Archives of Microbiology · doi:10.1007/s00203-026-05074-3
Refold: Refining Protein Inverse Folding with Efficient Structural Matching and Fusion
Zhu, Y., Chi, C., Xiang, H., Du, W., Wang, X., & Xia, J. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3818834
Sun, Y.-D., Song, L.-J., Liu, B., Cheng, C.-Y., Zhang, L., Zhang, J.-P., & Zhang, X.-B. (2026) · The CRISPR Journal · doi:10.1177/25731599261470587
Yang, M., Zheng, X., Li, Y., Zheng, Y., Koh, H. Y., Guo, Y., Gao, J., Xia, F., & Pan, S. (2026) · ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining (KDD) · doi:10.1145/3770855.3818975
AI Designed Conformation Locking Peptides Target STING to Restore Diabetic Wound Healing
Zhang, R., Fu, H., Wang, Z., Chen, X., Zhang, R., Wang, X., Zhang, D., Li, X., & Li, D. (2026) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.76849
Local energetic frustration: Protein evolution, conformational dynamics and design in the age of AI
Simonetti, F. L., Draizen, E. J., Espada, R., & Parra, R. G. (2026) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Proteins and Proteomics · doi:10.1016/j.bbapap.2026.141170
Coevolution-informed Bayesian optimization for sample-efficient protein designPreprint
Kulathunga, D. P., Shukla, D., & Potoyan, D. A. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.06.743295
Singh, D. (2026) · Journal of Proteins and Proteomics · doi:10.1007/s42485-026-00212-3
The sweet spot in protein design—Where deep learning meets first principles
Cia, G., Orlando, G., Cianferoni, D., van der Kant, R., Delgado, J., Verschueren, E., Rousseau, F., Serrano, L. G., & Schymkowitz, J. W. H. (2026) · FEBS Letters · doi:10.1002/1873-3468.70429
Wilson, G., Bennett, C., Wright, E., & Turner, J. (2025) · Pharmacophore · doi:10.51847/yya2shcyj9
Deep Learning for Protein Structure Prediction: From AlphaFold to the Next Frontier
Shiwach, E., & Kumar, S. (2026) · Applied Science and Biotechnology Journal for Advanced Research · doi:10.31033/abjar/5.3.2026.122
Ma, B., Wang, Z., Jian, Y., Mi, Y., Chen, S., Hu, H., & Li, X. (2026) · Research · doi:10.34133/research.1420
Tan, H., Lin, S., & Xiong, Y. (2026) · Chemical Science · doi:10.1039/d6sc02103d
ÁLVAREZ, G., Martínez‐Noa, Y., Singh, B., Gaza, J. T., Liu, Q., & Perez, A. (2026) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781394316632.ch07
Mohan, K., & Bhargava, Y. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.09.743834
Li, S., Zhang, X., Yan, T., Liu, Y., Chen, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhu, Y., Xu, Y., Luo, Y., Liu, Y., et al. (2026) · Trends in biotechnology · doi:10.1016/j.tibtech.2026.07.023
Scaffold-Constrained Generative Design Overcomes Failure Modes in Computational Protein EngineeringPreprint
Pourbaghi, M., Elemento, O., & Bradbury, M. S. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.07.743551
Tokenization in Protein Language Models: Methods, Taxonomy, and Applications
Linoubli, A., Abidi, K., & Farah, M. (2026) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-92-2597-2_11
Pi-Ensemble: Sequence-guided generation of interpolated protein conformational ensemblesPreprint
Nadeem, H., Kleiman, D. E., Zhou, Y., Leakey, A. D. B., & Shukla, D. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.12.744498
Slota, J. A., Kirby, M., Driessche, A. V. D., Kielich, D. M. S., Lamoureux, L., Beniac, D. R., Layne, C., Poirier, M., Stetefeld, J., Booth, S. A., et al. (2026) · mBio · doi:10.1128/mbio.00831-26
Yang, M., Shen, J., Zhan, S., Jing, G., Ma, B., & Yin, Q. (2026) · Industrial Crops and Products · doi:10.1016/j.indcrop.2026.124118
Structure‐ and deep learning–guided engineering of a size‐minimized CRISPR /Cas
Le, S., & Thach, T. T. (2026) · FEBS Journal · doi:10.1111/febs.70707
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Approaches to Next-Generation Snakebite Treatments
Knudsen, C., & Torres, S. V. (2026) · doi:10.1021/bk-2026-1529.ch004
Applications of synthetic biology in biomedicine
Li, C., Liu, Z.-X., Lin, Y.-F., Wang, Z.-H., Yang, Y.-M., Feng, S., Sun, Y.-H., Zhang, X.-T., Fu, W., Ding, Y.-F., et al. (2026) · Molecular Biomedicine · doi:10.1186/s43556-026-00545-x
Artificial Intelligence-Driven Multiscale Design of Protein-Based Materials
Zhou, X., Zhao, C., Zhang, Q., & Yao, Y. (2026) · Bioconjugate Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.bioconjchem.6c00309
Intracellular protein binders for imaging, control and future therapeutics
Barykina, N. V., & Verkhusha, V. V. (2026) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-026-01768-7
Building better binders: De novo generation of TCR-like antibodies specific to oncogenic KRAS
Tsai, A. K., & Stromnes, I. M. (2026) · Molecular Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.ymthe.2026.08.019
Motif grafting and diffusion-based diversification for the computational design of BMP-2 binders
Burress, B., Asgari, A., Dorogin, J., Fear, K. M., Gonzalez, C., Svendsen, J. E., Merrill, D., Hettiaratchi, M. H., & Hosseinzadeh, P. (2026) · The Journal of Precision Medicine Health and Disease · doi:10.64898/2026.08.20.745793
Reduced stutter artifact formation with an engineered thermostable DNA polymerase
Courtney, N. A., Mokry, D. Z., Killoran, M. P., Schnell, K., Zimmerman, K., Knoche, K., Hudson, B. C., Ames, C., Sequeira, P., Lentz, T., et al. (2026) · Forensic Science International Genetics · doi:10.1016/j.fsigen.2026.103606
Qin, Y., Guo, Y., Li, Y., Yang, M., & Zheng, X. (2026) · International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing (BIC) · doi:10.1145/3809986.3810134
From Standardization to Intelligence: The Evolution of Automated Genetic Circuit Design
Meng, Y. (2026) · International Conference on Bioinformatics and Intelligent Computing (BIC) · doi:10.1145/3809986.3810133
Large language models in bioinformatics: a comprehensive survey
Meng, Z., Yang, Z., Zhu, M., & Xu, J. (2026) · Frontiers in Genetics · doi:10.3389/fgene.2026.1797863
Guo, Z.-T., Ye, K., Shi, Z.-Y., Li, J.-Y., Zhang, S.-Y., Li, B.-L., & Liu, F. (2026) · Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.70618
De novo epitope-specific antibody design via time-dependent guidance
Kim, Y., & Baek, M. (2026) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btag455
AI-Designed Synthetic CRISPR Enzymes: Evolving Molecular Scissors Beyond Natural Constraints
Khalid, S. (2026) · Futuristic Biotechnology · doi:10.54393/fbt.v6i2.245
Opportunities and challenges of artificial intelligence-driven peptide discovery
Wang, Z., Liang, R., Liang, A., Wu, C., Jiang, J., Zhu, J., & Gao, Y. (2026) · Chinese Chemical Letters · doi:10.1016/j.cclet.2026.113345
Engineering Antivenom: Research Progress and Future Directions in Snakebite Envenoming Therapy
Laustsen, A. H. (2026) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.70385
Ahmed, S., & Jani, M. R. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.23.746499
Sun, X., xiao, Q., Zhang, N., Li, W., Luo, H., Gao, Y., Zhang, L., Fan, Y., Jiang, P., Huang, Y., et al. (2026) · Angewandte Chemie · doi:10.1002/ange.6395554
Ge, W., Yu, Q., Shuai, J., & Zhao, Q. (2026) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.6c01919
AI and next-generation gene editing tools
Raza, M. Z., Khursheed, H., Ali, Q., Liu, Y., Riaz, M., Al‐Harrasi, A., & Ahmad, A. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-44079-3.00011-5
From data to discovery: The role of AI in advancing gene editing
AKSOY, E. (2026) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-44079-3.00003-6
Minimal-alphabet proteins by evolution, engineering, and design
Buchel, F., Giacobelli, V. G., & Hlouchová, K. (2026) · Trends in Biochemical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tibs.2026.08.002
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
