Machine-learning-guided library design cycle for directed evolution of enzymes: the effects of training data composition on sequence space exploration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Machine learning (ML) is becoming an attractive tool in mutagenesis-based protein engineering because of its ability to design a variant library containing proteins with a desired function. However, it remains unclear how ML guides directed evolution in sequence space depending on the composition of training data. Here, we present a ML-guided directed evolution study of an enzyme to investigate the effects of a known “highly positive” variant (i.e., variant known to have high enzyme activity) in training data. We performed two separate series of ML-guided directed evolution of Sortase A with and without a known highly positive variant called 5M in training data. In each series, two rounds of ML were conducted: variants predicted by the first round were experimentally evaluated, and used as additional training data for the second-round prediction. The improvements in enzyme activity were comparable between the two series, both achieving enzyme activity 2.2–2.5 times higher than 5M. Intriguingly, the sequences of the improved variants were largely different between the two series, indicating that ML guided the directed evolution to the distinct regions of sequence space depending on the presence/absence of the highly positive variant in the training data. This suggests that the sequence diversity of improved variants can be expanded not only by conventional ML using the whole training data, but also by ML using a subset of the training data even when it lacks highly positive variants. In summary, this study demonstrates the importance of regulating the composition of training data in ML-guided directed evolution.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".