Computational design of cysteine proteases
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite advances in de novo enzyme design, success has been largely limited to low energy barrier model reactions. Amide bonds such as those linking amino acids along the peptide backbone are stable for hundreds of years in neutral aqueous solution because of the high energy barrier to hydrolysis 1 . Here we describe the de novo design of enzymes which utilize an activated cysteine nucleophile to hydrolyze the polypeptide backbone in a sequence-dependent manner, with a success rate of 13/69=19% and rate enhancements over the background reaction ( k cat / k uncat ) of up to 3 × 10 7 . The designed proteases have folds very different from proteases in nature (TM score < 0.50), and six crystal structures are very close to the design models (Cα RMSDs < 1.2 Å), highlighting the capacity for generalization and the accuracy of the design methodology. Experimental and computational analyses suggest that the remaining gap in activity to the most active native cysteine proteases arises from imperfections in active site preorganization and substrate positioning. The designed proteases efficiently cleave their targets in mammalian cells, opening the door to a wide range of synthetic biology applications.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".