Multistate approaches in computational protein design
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational protein design (CPD) is a useful tool for protein engineers. It has been successfully applied towards the creation of proteins with increased thermostability, improved binding affinity, novel enzymatic activity, and altered ligand specificity. Traditionally, CPD calculations search and rank sequences using a single fixed protein backbone template in an approach referred to as single-state design (SSD). While SSD has enjoyed considerable success, certain design objectives require the explicit consideration of multiple conformational and/or chemical states. Cases where a "multistate" approach may be advantageous over the SSD approach include designing conformational changes into proteins, using native ensembles to mimic backbone flexibility, and designing ligand or oligomeric association specificities. These design objectives can be efficiently tackled using multistate design (MSD), an emerging methodology in CPD that considers any number of protein conformational or chemical states as inputs instead of a single protein backbone template, as in SSD. In this review article, recent examples of the successful design of a desired property into proteins using MSD are described. These studies employing MSD are divided into two categories--those that utilized multiple conformational states, and those that utilized multiple chemical states. In addition, the scoring of competing states during negative design is discussed as a current challenge for MSD.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".