Dissecting the stability determinants of a challenging de novo protein fold using massively parallel design and experimentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing entirely new protein structures remains challenging because we do not fully understand the biophysical determinants of folding stability. Yet, some protein folds are easier to design than others. Previous work identified the 43-residue ɑββɑ fold as especially challenging: The best designs had only a 2% success rate, compared to 39 to 87% success for other simple folds [G. J. Rocklin et al., Science 357, 168-175 (2017)]. This suggested the ɑββɑ fold would be a useful model system for gaining a deeper understanding of folding stability determinants and for testing new protein design methods. Here, we designed over 10,000 new ɑββɑ proteins and found over 3,000 of them to fold into stable structures using a high-throughput protease-based assay. NMR, hydrogen-deuterium exchange, circular dichroism, deep mutational scanning, and scrambled sequence control experiments indicated that our stable designs fold into their designed ɑββɑ structures with exceptional stability for their small size. Our large dataset enabled us to quantify the influence of universal stability determinants including nonpolar burial, helix capping, and buried unsatisfied polar atoms, as well as stability determinants unique to the ɑββɑ topology. Our work demonstrates how large-scale design and test cycles can solve challenging design problems while illuminating the biophysical determinants of folding.
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".