4.7 Article

EvoEF2: accurate and fast energy function for computational protein design

Journal

BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 36, Issue 4, Pages 1135-1142

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz740

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Institute of General Medical Sciences [GM083107, GM116960]
  2. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [AI134678]
  3. National Science Foundation [DBI1564756, IIS1901191]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Motivation: The accuracy and success rate of de novo protein design remain limited, mainly due to the parameter over-fitting of current energy functions and their inability to discriminate incorrect designs from correct designs. Results: We developed an extended energy function, EvoEF2, for efficient de novo protein sequence design, based on a previously proposed physical energy function, EvoEF. Remarkably, EvoEF2 recovered 32.5%, 47.9% and 22.3% of all, core and surface residues for 148 test monomers, and was generally applicable to protein-protein interaction design, as it recapitulated 30.9%, 42.4%, 31.3% and 21.4% of all, core, interface and surface residues for 88 test dimers, significantly outperforming EvoEF on the native sequence recapitulation. We further used I-TASSER to evaluate the foldability of the 148 designed monomer sequences, where all of them were predicted to fold into structures with high fold- and atomic-level similarity to their corresponding native structures, as demonstrated by the fact that 87.8% of the predicted structures shared a root-mean-square-deviation less than 2 angstrom to their native counterparts. The study also demonstrated that the usefulness of physical energy functions is highly correlated with the parameter optimization processes, and EvoEF2, with parameters optimized using sequence recapitulation, is more suitable for computational protein sequence design than EvoEF, which was optimized on thermodynamic mutation data.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available