Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 0Advanced Chemical Physics StudiesComputational Drug Discovery MethodsProtein Structure and Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Quantum chemical profiling of protein mutations via fragment-based DFT

Open access
Leyva, Alejandro, Niazi, M. Khalid Khan·2026·Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Missense mutations have been extensively studied in tumor-suppressing antigens (TP53) to understand oncogenesis within malignant epithelial cells. Using Whole Exome Sequencing (WXS), missense mutations can be profiled into protein sequences to identify the most common variants in tumor samples. Since most mutations arise randomly, it is necessary to isolate those that produce dysfunctional proteins within large cohorts. Using threading and generative algorithms such as AlphaFold and ColabFold, large cohorts of WXS information can be converted into computationally analyzable structures. By evaluating both high- and low-confidence regions in these structures, these antigens can be studied en masse using pipelines that generate analytical inputs for quantum chemistry analysis. We created a pipeline that processed whole-exome sequencing (WXS) data and selected 28 representative TP53 missense mutants from the TCGA-BRCA cohort for quantum-chemical feasibility analysis. These structures were systematically cleaned using tools such as OpenBabel and AmberTools, and each was prepared for Natural Population Analysis (NPA), Electrostatic Potential (ESP) calculations, and Highest and Lowest Occupied Molecular Orbital (HOMO/LUMO) evaluation within Q-Chem. Using this pipeline, population genomics can be integrated with chemoinformatics to analyze electron density concentrations and generate hypothesis-generating electronic descriptors associated with protein dysfunction. By modifying the generated inputs, additional analyses such as Fukui orbitals, chemical shifts, and Raman shifts can also be performed. This provides a computational means to probe electronic properties not readily accessible at scale using experimental techniques.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fmolb.2026.1770157

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

FIGURE 1 Compact multi-row flowchart summarizing the computational pipeline from WXS data to structural modeling (AlphaFold) and quantum chemical analysis (Q-Chem).
FIGURE 1 Compact multi-row flowchart summarizing the computational pipeline from WXS data to structural modeling (AlphaFold) and quantum chemical analysis (Q-Chem).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 2 AlphaFold/ColabFold structural prediction outputs for TP53 C176 variants. The full-width panel shows the predicted aligned error (PAE). The bottom row shows per-residue pLDDT confidence scores and the MSA sequence coverage. (a) Predicted aligned error (PAE). (b) Per-residue pLDDT confidence. (c) MSA sequence coverage.
FIGURE 2 AlphaFold/ColabFold structural prediction outputs for TP53 C176 variants. The full-width panel shows the predicted aligned error (PAE). The bottom row shows per-residue pLDDT confidence scores and the MSA sequence coverage. (a) Predicted aligned error (PAE). (b) Per-residue pLDDT confidence. (c) MSA sequence coverage.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 3 TP53 mutational landscape in the BRCA cohort: global mutation characteristics, truncation status, and biochemical severity. TP53 mutational landscape in the BRCA cohort (ext.): positional distributions, hotspot structure, and recurrent variants. (a) Mutation type distribution. (b) Domain-wise mutation counts. (c) Missense vs. nonsense per domain. (d) Truncating vs. non-truncating mutations. (e) Samples with truncating TP53 mutations. (f) Conservative vs. non-conservative missense. (g) Distribution of mutation positions. (h) Per-position sample counts (hotspots). (i) Top recurrent TP53 variants. (j) Top recurrent missense substitutions.
FIGURE 3 TP53 mutational landscape in the BRCA cohort: global mutation characteristics, truncation status, and biochemical severity. TP53 mutational landscape in the BRCA cohort (ext.): positional distributions, hotspot structure, and recurrent variants. (a) Mutation type distribution. (b) Domain-wise mutation counts. (c) Missense vs. nonsense per domain. (d) Truncating vs. non-truncating mutations. (e) Samples with truncating TP53 mutations. (f) Conservative vs. non-conservative missense. (g) Distribution of mutation positions. (h) Per-position sample counts (hotspots). (i) Top recurrent TP53 variants. (j) Top recurrent missense substitutions.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 4 AlphaFold/ColabFold structural prediction outputs for TP53 Wild-Type. The full-width panel shows the predicted aligned error (PAE). The bottom row shows per-residue pLDDT confidence scores and the MSA sequence coverage. (a) Predicted aligned error (PAE). (b) Per-residue pLDDT confidence. (c) MSA sequence coverage.
FIGURE 4 AlphaFold/ColabFold structural prediction outputs for TP53 Wild-Type. The full-width panel shows the predicted aligned error (PAE). The bottom row shows per-residue pLDDT confidence scores and the MSA sequence coverage. (a) Predicted aligned error (PAE). (b) Per-residue pLDDT confidence. (c) MSA sequence coverage.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 5 Comparison of the predicted structures for wildtype and mutant TP53. Structural differences are visualized using AlphaFold/ColabFold predicted coordinates. (a) Wildtype TP53 structure. (b) Mutant TP53 structure.
FIGURE 5 Comparison of the predicted structures for wildtype and mutant TP53. Structural differences are visualized using AlphaFold/ColabFold predicted coordinates. (a) Wildtype TP53 structure. (b) Mutant TP53 structure.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 6 List of TP53 missense mutants analyzed in this study, showing residue position and amino-acid substitution relative to the wild-type sequence.
FIGURE 6 List of TP53 missense mutants analyzed in this study, showing residue position and amino-acid substitution relative to the wild-type sequence.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 7 Using sinistrodextral labels, Electrostatic potential (ESP) analyses including (a) heatmap, (b) PCA, (c) first-mutant line plots, and (d) histogram of summed ESP charges (d).
FIGURE 7 Using sinistrodextral labels, Electrostatic potential (ESP) analyses including (a) heatmap, (b) PCA, (c) first-mutant line plots, and (d) histogram of summed ESP charges (d).CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 8 Using sinistrodextral labels, Natural Population Analysis (NPA) charge analyses including (a) heatmap, (b) PCA, (c) first-mutant line plots, and (d) histogram of summed NPA charges.
FIGURE 8 Using sinistrodextral labels, Natural Population Analysis (NPA) charge analyses including (a) heatmap, (b) PCA, (c) first-mutant line plots, and (d) histogram of summed NPA charges.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 9 Using sinistrodextral labels, Quantum mechanical electronic structure metrics including (A) HOMO–LUMO energy gap histogram and (B) HOMO–LUMO scatter distribution across mutants.
FIGURE 9 Using sinistrodextral labels, Quantum mechanical electronic structure metrics including (A) HOMO–LUMO energy gap histogram and (B) HOMO–LUMO scatter distribution across mutants.CC BY · PubMed Central
FIGURE 10 Quantum-chemical perturbation of TP53 mutants relative to the wild-type (WT) fragment. (a) and (b) show WT-referenced changes in NPA and ESP atomic charges, respectively, highlighting residues and environments with strong electronic redistribution. (c) links frontier-orbital perturbation (HOMO–LUMO gap) to the total magnitude of charge reorganization, summarizing how severely each mutant distorts the local electronic structure relative to WT. (a) ANPA atomic charges vs WT fragment. Each row corresponds to a TP53 mutant (in- cluding WT), each column to an atom index in the QM fragment; colors indicate the change in NPA charge relative to WT. (b) AESP (ChEIPG) atomic charges vs WT fragment. Each row corresponds to a TP53 mu- tant; colors indicate the change in ESP-derived partial charge relative to WT. (c) Relationship between HOMO-LUMO gap (eV) and the magnitude of the WT-referenced charge perturbation (L1 norm of Acharge vector). Each point is a TP53 mutant; larger values indicate stronger electronic disruption relative to WT.
FIGURE 10 Quantum-chemical perturbation of TP53 mutants relative to the wild-type (WT) fragment. (a) and (b) show WT-referenced changes in NPA and ESP atomic charges, respectively, highlighting residues and environments with strong electronic redistribution. (c) links frontier-orbital perturbation (HOMO–LUMO gap) to the total magnitude of charge reorganization, summarizing how severely each mutant distorts the local electronic structure relative to WT. (a) ANPA atomic charges vs WT fragment. Each row corresponds to a TP53 mutant (in- cluding WT), each column to an atom index in the QM fragment; colors indicate the change in NPA charge relative to WT. (b) AESP (ChEIPG) atomic charges vs WT fragment. Each row corresponds to a TP53 mu- tant; colors indicate the change in ESP-derived partial charge relative to WT. (c) Relationship between HOMO-LUMO gap (eV) and the magnitude of the WT-referenced charge perturbation (L1 norm of Acharge vector). Each point is a TP53 mutant; larger values indicate stronger electronic disruption relative to WT.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 29 references

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. Buel, 2022, Can AlphaFold2 predict the impact of missense mutations on structure?, Nat. Struct. & Mol. Biol., 29, 1, 10.1038/s41594-021-00728-3 · doi:10.1038/s41594-021-00728-3
  2. Hosseini, 2025, Accurate electrostatics for biomolecular systems through machine learning, 10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-q2v9m · doi:10.26434/chemrxiv-2025-q2v9m
  3. Hulboy, 1994, Structural and functional analysis of P53: the acidic activation domain has transforming capability, Cell Growth & Differ., 5, 1023
  4. Joerger, 2008, Structural biology of the tumor suppressor p53, Oncogene, 27, 6141
  5. Parr, 1989, Density-functional theory of atoms and molecules
  6. Szabo, 1996, Modern quantum chemistry: introduction to advanced electronic structure theory

Metadata

Authors
Leyva, A., & Niazi, M. K. K.
Affiliations
The Ohio State University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Leyva, Alejandro
  • Niazi, M. Khalid Khan
Venue
Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences
Published
2026-02-18
Volume
13
Pages
1770157-1770157
ISSN
2296-889X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W7130308454
Cited by
0
References
29
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R01CA276301)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Advanced Chemical Physics Studies
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
TP53, missense mutations, tumor suppressor proteins, protein dysfunction, natural population analysis, electrostatic potential, HOMO-LUMO analysis, electronic descriptors, TCGA-BRCA, protein structure prediction, cheminformatics, population genomics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Quantum chemical profiling of protein mutations via fragment-based DFT. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fmolb.2026.1770157
The paper
Leyva, A., & Niazi, M. K. K. (2026). Quantum chemical profiling of protein mutations via fragment-based DFT. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2026.1770157

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.