Insertions and Deletions (Indels): A Missing Piece of the Protein Engineering Jigsaw
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the years, protein engineers have studied nature and borrowed its tricks to accelerate protein evolution in the test tube. While there have been considerable advances, our ability to generate new proteins in the laboratory is seemingly limited. One explanation for these shortcomings may be that insertions and deletions (indels), which frequently arise in nature, are largely overlooked during protein engineering campaigns. The profound effect of indels on protein structures, by way of drastic backbone alterations, could be perceived as "saltation" events that bring about significant phenotypic changes in a single mutational step. Should we leverage these effects to accelerate protein engineering and gain access to unexplored regions of adaptive landscapes? In this Perspective, we describe the role played by indels in the functional diversification of proteins in nature and discuss their untapped potential for protein engineering, despite their often-destabilizing nature. We hope to spark a renewed interest in indels, emphasizing that their wider study and use may prove insightful and shape the future of protein engineering by unlocking unique functional changes that substitutions alone could never achieve.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it