Computational tools help improve protein stability but with a solubility tradeoff
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately predicting changes in protein stability upon amino acid substitution is a much sought after goal. Destabilizing mutations are often implicated in disease, whereas stabilizing mutations are of great value for industrial and therapeutic biotechnology. Increasing protein stability is an especially challenging task, with random substitution yielding stabilizing mutations in only ∼2% of cases. To overcome this bottleneck, computational tools that aim to predict the effect of mutations have been developed; however, achieving accuracy and consistency remains challenging. Here, we combined 11 freely available tools into a meta-predictor (meieringlab.uwaterloo.ca/stabilitypredict/). Validation against ∼600 experimental mutations indicated that our meta-predictor has improved performance over any of the individual tools. The meta-predictor was then used to recommend 10 mutations in a previously designed protein of moderate thermodynamic stability, ThreeFoil. Experimental characterization showed that four mutations increased protein stability and could be amplified through ThreeFoil's structural symmetry to yield several multiple mutants with >2-kcal/mol stabilization. By avoiding residues within functional ties, we could maintain ThreeFoil's glycan-binding capacity. Despite successfully achieving substantial stabilization, however, almost all mutations decreased protein solubility, the most common cause of protein design failure. Examination of the 600-mutation data set revealed that stabilizing mutations on the protein surface tend to increase hydrophobicity and that the individual tools favor this approach to gain stability. Thus, whereas currently available tools can increase protein stability and combining them into a meta-predictor yields enhanced reliability, improvements to the potentials/force fields underlying these tools are needed to avoid gaining protein stability at the cost of solubility.
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 | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".