4.7 Article

DeCoDe: degenerate codon design for complete protein-coding DNA libraries

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 36, 期 11, 页码 3357-3364

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa162

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [DP2-GM-123641]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: High-throughput protein screening is a critical technique for dissecting and designing protein function. Libraries for these assays can be created through a number of means, including targeted or random mutagenesis of a template protein sequence or direct DNA synthesis. However, mutagenic library construction methods often yield vastly more nonfunctional than functional variants and, despite advances in large-scale DNA synthesis, individual synthesis of each desired DNA template is often prohibitively expensive. Consequently, many protein-screening libraries rely on the use of degenerate codons (DCs), mixtures of DNA bases incorporated at specific positions during DNA synthesis, to generate highly diverse protein-variant pools from only a few low-cost synthesis reactions. However, selecting DCs for sets of sequences that covary at multiple positions dramatically increases the difficulty of designing a DC library and leads to the creation of many undesired variants that can quickly outstrip screening capacity. Results: We introduce a novel algorithm for total DC library optimization, degenerate codon design (DeCoDe), based on integer linear programming. DeCoDe significantly outperforms state-of-the-art DC optimization algorithms and scales well to more than a hundred proteins sharing complex patterns of covariation (e.g. the lab-derived avGFP lineage). Moreover, DeCoDe is, to our knowledge, the first DC design algorithm with the capability to encode mixedlength protein libraries. We anticipate DeCoDe to be broadly useful for a variety of library generation problems, ranging from protein engineering attempts that leverage mutual information to the reconstruction of ancestral protein states.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据