Skip to content
naulon
Get started

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 22, 2026.

Opportunities and Challenges for Machine Learning-Assisted Enzyme Engineering

Jason Yang, Francesca-Zhoufan Li, Frances H. Arnold

ACS Central Science · 2024 · Review · CC BY

doi:10.1021/acscentsci.3c01275 (opens in a new tab)

Abstract

Enzymes can be engineered at the level of their amino acid sequences to optimize key properties such as expression, stability, substrate range, and catalytic efficiency-or even to unlock new catalytic activities not found in nature. Because the search space of possible proteins is vast, enzyme engineering usually involves discovering an enzyme starting point that has some level of the desired activity followed by directed evolution to improve its "fitness" for a desired application. Recently, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a powerful tool to complement this empirical process. ML models can contribute to (1) starting point discovery by functional annotation of known protein sequences or generating novel protein sequences with desired functions and (2) navigating protein fitness landscapes for fitness optimization by learning mappings between protein sequences and their associated fitness values. In this Outlook, we explain how ML complements enzyme engineering and discuss its future potential to unlock improved engineering outcomes.

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 22, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

Introduction: The Current Approach to Enzyme Engineering

Engineered proteins are important for medicine, chemical manufacturing, biotechnology, energy, agriculture, consumer products, and more. Antibodies, for example, can be engineered to enhance their binding and specificity as therapeutics, whereas the stabilities and activities of enzymes can be improved under process conditions to obtain greener and more efficient chemical syntheses.− At its core, protein engineering is a design problem: the goal is to generate and/or alter a protein’s amino acid sequence to encode a desired function. “Fitness” is a numerical quantification of that desired function, which may include multiple features that contribute to overall performance. Altering fitness is equivalent to traversing the protein’s fitness landscape, which is a surface in high-dimensional space that maps sequence to fitness. Protein engineering is challenging because accurate biophysical prediction methods for determining protein fitness are rare or nonexistent, and the search space of possible proteins is beyond-astronomically large. To make matters worse, functional proteins are scarce in the space of all protein sequences, and finding an optimal sequence on this protein fitness landscape is NP-hard, as there is no known polynomial-time solution.

In this Outlook we focus on engineering enzymes, which have applications in areas ranging from chemical synthesis and plastic degradation to diagnostics, protein therapeutics, and gene editing., Enzyme engineering poses some unique challenges: catalysis is more complex than binding and may involve multiple substrates, cofactors, and elementary steps. Furthermore, typical experimental screening methods for measuring enzymatic fitness are lower throughput than binding assays, for which powerful positive and negative selections can usually be devised. Enzymes are often engineered to enhance their native functions, or alternatively to target “promiscuous” activities, such as reactivity on non-native substrates or even non-native reactivities (Figure 1A). Due to the challenges of modeling catalysis and the limited throughput of meaningful assays, enzyme engineers often use directed evolution (DE) to optimize these features.,

At a high level, engineering an enzyme involves discovering an enzyme with some initial level of activity (satisfying some but not all desired properties), followed by fitness improvement using DE (Figure 1). Thus, the first step of an enzyme engineering workflow involves identifying (or designing) an enzyme with some measurable fitness. Consider engineering an enzyme to catalyze a new chemical reaction. To find a new activity that is related to a known activity, one might screen previously engineered enzymes for “promiscuous” activity for the desired function (Figure 1A)., If none is detected, it may be necessary to explore other known enzymes or proteins in annotated databases (Figure 1B). Those with active sites amenable to accommodating a particular substrate, evolvable folds, cofactors relevant to a desired activity, or similar mechanisms may be valid starting points. Unfortunately, these approaches rely too much on experimental intuition and luck, and such an Edisonian search through existing proteins is inefficient and often ineffective. Even if activity is found, the enzyme might need to be stabilized so that it has suitable behavior for screening or can undergo further evolution, and it must express well in the host organism, such as bacteria or yeast. Computationally assisted methods such as chimeragenesis and ancestral sequence reconstruction have emerged to propose diverse protein starting points (sometimes having higher stability, evolvability, different substrate scopes) (Figure 1C).− Methods aided by software suites such as Rosetta have been successful in redesigning enzymes and enhancing their stabilities,− but de novo enzyme design is still nascent and works well only for relatively simple reactions.− Because enzyme activity is influenced by a complex mix of poorly understood factors, most de novo designed enzymes must be further optimized.

Once a suitable enzyme with measurable function is identified, fitness can be improved by DE and related techniques., DE sidesteps the need to understand protein sequence-fitness relationships and optimizes protein fitness by performing greedy hill climbing on the protein fitness landscape (Figure 1D).,, In its simplest form, DE involves accumulating beneficial mutations by making mutations to the protein (mutagenesis) and screening for variant(s) with higher performance on target properties (Figure 1E). The targeted properties can change during optimization by changing the screening criteria, and informative screens can investigate multiple properties simultaneously. Recombination is often used to shuffle beneficial mutations so that screening can identify mutation combinations that further increase fitness., DE takes advantage of the fact that functional sequences are clustered in sequence space, i.e., functional sequences are surrounded by many other functional sequences, and smooth uphill paths exist in the landscape. However, DE is limited because screening can only explore a limited, local region within the sequence search space. Additionally, because DE largely follows a smooth path taking one mutation step at a time, so it can become stuck at a local fitness optimum.

Recently, machine learning (ML) has emerged as a useful tool for enzyme engineering, both for the discovery of functional enzymes, which is the focus of the first section of this Outlook, and for navigating protein fitness landscapes for fitness optimization, which is the focus of the second section. We encourage readers to read other reviews summarizing recent advancements in these areas.− ML is particularly well suited for the challenges of enzyme engineering, as generative models can take advantage of patterns in known protein sequences and supervised models can learn from labels of protein properties such as various measures of fitness. In this Outlook, we explain existing methods where ML is used to assist enzyme engineering, and we propose ML-related research efforts that can have the most beneficial impact for engineering outcomes. Ultimately, we believe that the steps of ML-assisted enzyme engineering can be integrated toward fully automated engineering of many desired properties.

Discovery of Functional Enzymes with Machine Learning

A starting point for enzyme engineering is usually identified either from a search of existing sequences or by generating new candidates. ML methods have emerged to help with both approaches (Figure 2). Classification methods can annotate protein sequence/structure databases and uncover previously unannotated proteins with a desired function, while generative models using deep learning can design novel proteins with desired functions.

Annotation of Enzyme Activity among Known Proteins

Approximately 250 million protein sequences are catalogued in the UniProt database, but less than 0.3% are annotated with function. Thus, hundreds of millions of known proteins have not been explored as starting points for enzyme engineering. If these proteins could be accurately annotated, protein engineers would have access to a wealth of diverse candidates for engineering. While enzyme engineers have long been using multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) and homology to predict the functions of unannotated protein sequences, ML classification models extend these approaches and draw from more complete features describing protein sequences and structures to predict more specific functions, such as type of reactivity and kcat.,− Focusing on known sequences without annotations, many of these methods aim to classify enzyme sequences based on their enzyme commission (EC) numbers, which is a hierarchical classification scheme that divides enzymes into general classes and then further subclasses, based on their catalytic activities (Figure 2A).

In particular, contrastive learning-enabled enzyme annotation (CLEAN) has demonstrated state-of-the-art success at accurately classifying enzyme sequences based on their EC numbers. Upon wet-lab validation, CLEAN accurately characterized all four EC hierarchical numbers of understudied halogenase enzymes with 87% accuracy, which is significantly better than the next-best method at 40% accuracy. Impressively, CLEAN also correctly identified an enzyme with three different EC numbers, corresponding to promiscuous activities, where promiscuity prediction was framed as multitask classification. Promiscuous activities, which can include similar reactivity on new substrates or entirely different reactivity (Figure 1A), are often the starting points for evolving enzymes for non-natural activity. Thus, enzyme functional annotation efforts should include efforts to annotate these sorts of promiscuous activities for use in future enzyme discovery pipelines., Many promiscuous activities are difficult to detect or simply have not been tested; it will be critical to perform experimental assays to update enzyme function databases. Text mining of literature using large language models (LLMs) based on generative pretrained transformer (GPT) architectures could also help identify missing labels and update existing databases by extracting knowledge from scientific literature which has not been included in existing databases (Figure 2B).

We suggest a few other strategies to improve functional annotation efforts. EC numbers do not capture a quantitative notion of similarity between reactions, so enzyme activity prediction would benefit from a learned continuous representation of the similarity between activities, where reactions, substrates, and products are numerically encoded. This could resemble current efforts to encode chemical structures and predict the outcomes of reactions in synthetic organic chemistry.− Databases will be useful for the curation and standardization of enzyme reaction data., Overall, there is also still room to develop better benchmarks for enzyme discovery, to measure the effectiveness of various models and representations.

Recently, there has been an explosion in protein structure data from ML-enabled protein structure prediction tools such as AlphaFold2 and others− and databases of unannotated protein structures. Clustering similar structures is one way to annotate for function. Alternatively, many enzymes have common “modules,” or recurring residue arrangements, which perform similar reactions. The structures of active sites in unlabeled protein structures could be compared to existing structures to identify new, diverse sets of proteins with given function, using models trained on sequence and structure. Structures could also be physically modeled to predict their interactions with different substrates. In principle, an ML model could be trained to combine multimodal information such as spatial descriptors of protein structures with an LLM trained on information about chemical reactions., This artificial intelligence (AI) model would act as protein structural biologist and organic chemist. By synthesizing these two forms of knowledge, the model could perform the laborious work of sifting through and identifying viable protein structures for desired reactivity (Figure 2C)., Finally, it is also possible to go beyond known protein sequences and expand the search for functional enzymes to microbial dark matter: metagenomic analysis has only scratched the surface of these genomes.

Generating New Proteins with Deep Learning

While many functional enzymes could be discovered through annotation of known protein sequences, generating entirely new sequences not explored by evolution could also be useful, as these could unlock unseen combinations of properties and, potentially, non-natural activities. Chimeragenesis, an approach to generating energetically favorable proteins based on recombining functional homologous proteins,, has inspired development of deep learning approaches to assemble compatible structural domains in enzymes. Similarly, sets of mutations that are calculated to be energetically favorable using physics-based simulations (FuncLib) can be introduced in or near protein active sites to construct diversified proteins with high stability; by virtue of their sequence changes, they also exhibit promiscuous activities.,,− Efforts to combine structure design methods− and ancestral sequence reconstruction,,− with data-driven models could help identify improved enzyme variants with diversified substrate scope and enhanced stability/evolvability as starting points for enzyme engineering. However, generating proteins with non-native activities will be more challenging.

While the above methods can generate diverse sequences, these sequences are still quite similar to naturally occurring sequences, which means that vast regions of protein sequence space remain underexplored. Recently, significant efforts have focused on using deep learning to design enzymes with low similarity to known sequences or structures. These efforts are reviewed elsewhere in great detail.,,− In general, these methods fall into one of two main categories: (1) pure sequence generation and (2) structure design (finding a sequence that folds to a target structure or scaffold).

In pure sequence generation, protein language models (PLMs) can be conditioned by a known enzyme family to generate novel sequences with that function, without direct consideration of structure (Figure 2D).− Models with transformer architectures have generated enzymes such as lysozymes, malate dehydrogenases, and chorismate mutases: for the best models, up to 80% of wet-lab validated sequences expressed and functioned., Some of these generated sequences have low sequence identity (<40%) to known proteins and may be quite different from those explored by evolution, thus potentially unlocking combinations of properties not found in nature. Variational autoencoders (VAEs) have been used to generate phenylalanine hydroxylases and luciferases, with wet-lab validation achieving 30–80% success rates.,, Generative adversarial networks (GANs) were also applied to the generation of malate dehydrogenases, with 24% success rate. Alternatively, a diffusion model such as EvoDiff could achieve better coverage of protein functional and structural space during generation. Despite these successes, for many methods, only a small fraction of proposed sequences are functional in the wet lab, and those that do function are often quite similar to known sequences. Simulating the structures of generated proteins, filtering them based on evolutionary likelihood, and doing other quality checks significantly increased the hit rate of functional enzymes from generative models, but there is still much room for improvement. So far, these models have been demonstrated on large enzyme families; achieving the same success on smaller enzyme families poses a challenge.

It is also possible to design desired enzyme scaffolds/structures (Figure 2E).− One approach is hallucination, where a search algorithm uses a structure predictor to find a sequence that folds to the right structure.,, Luciferases with high luminescence and selectivity were engineered using deep-learning-assisted protein design, by combining hallucination with Rosetta sequence design. One of the wet-lab-validated designs demonstrated catalytic activity comparable to natural luciferases, with much higher substrate selectivity: the active site and the enzyme scaffold were both entirely different from naturally occurring luciferases. More recently, methods such as ProteinMPNN and RFdiffusion have achieved particular success for designing a broad range of proteins with targeted structures,, where design success was validated by measuring the similarity between the target structure and the designed structure as predicted by AlphaFold2. ProteinMPNN is an inverse folding model, which is a class of models where the input to the model is a structure, and the output is a sequence. RFdiffusion is a diffusion model, where the input is a condition based on desired structure or symmetry (along with random coordinates), and the output is the coordinates of the generated structure. Still, additional wet-lab studies are needed to determine if designed enzymes can express, fold, and function.

Enzyme design still has a lot of room for growth. Designs could provide diverse starting points for further engineering of desired activities, including activities that fall outside known EC numbers. While most current success involves generating protein scaffolds or activities that are already known, it will be exciting to see more efforts that focus on generating enzymes that do not resemble those in nature and/or exhibit non-natural activities. In protein engineering, certain protein folds are more evolvable for certain reasons, including elevated stability, that is imparted by residues outside the active site,, balanced with flexibility to change conformation and accommodate new substrates and reactions. Proteins that express well in a host organism for evolution are also preferred. Generative models have the potential to address this need for enzymes that are better starting points than natural enzymes: for example, ProteinMPNN was able to design wet-lab validated enzymes with higher expression and thermostability. With proper labels about enzyme activity on different substrates, generative design models could be conditioned to generate enzymes with several of these desirable attributes. Future research that could address this need would be highly impactful for enzyme engineering.

Navigating Protein Fitness Landscapes Using Machine Learning

Most enzyme starting points identified during the discovery stage need to be further optimized to achieve desired performance levels. DE and related techniques have demonstrated success in navigating protein fitness landscapes to optimize various properties. However, DE screens or selections can sample only a small fraction of sequences in a protein fitness landscape. DE can additionally be inefficient because focusing on single mutants ignores the nonadditive effects of accumulating multiple mutations (epistasis),, which is commonly observed when residues interact, such as in an enzyme active site or through a cofactor or substrate. Thus, a DE campaign can get stuck at a local optimum, even when high fitness sequences are nearby (Figure 3A). To address this limitation, protein fitness prediction methods using supervised ML models have emerged to learn a mapping between protein sequences and their associated fitness values to approximate protein fitness landscapes.− These models can then predict the fitnesses of previously unseen protein variants, increasing screening efficiency by evaluating proteins in silico and expanding exploration to a greater scope of sequences compared to conventional DE approaches., At the same time, zero-shot (ZS) predictors—such as implicit fitness constraints learned from naturally occurring protein sequences (evolutionary conservation)—can also guide the prediction of protein fitness.−

For a protein of length N, there are ∼20N possible sequences in the search space. ML models trained on the order of 102–103 labeled sequences (typical for an informative enzyme screen) would be unable to accurately extrapolate on such a large search space. As a result, current ML-assisted protein engineering approaches operate on constrained design spaces. Chimeragenesis has been explored as one way to constrain the search space, and various ML efforts have demonstrated success and utility on these landscapes.,− This approach can only introduce naturally occurring protein motifs, which can generate diverse proteins with native function while improving properties like stability. However, chimeragenesis is less likely to improve other properties, such as novel reactivity, because it retains conserved residues such as those important for native activity. More promising protein fitness prediction efforts focus on variants with one or several point mutations from a parent protein, by building training libraries using random mutagenesis or combinatorial site saturation mutagenesis. Still, artificially constraining the search space in these ways neglects certain important considerations. Using random mutagenesis to create a training library captures very limited epistasis, whereas building a meaningful combinatorial mutagenesis library requires choosing a few sites relevant to increasing fitness while still introducing epistasis, and these choices are often not obvious.

There remain many open questions about when ML-assisted protein fitness prediction is useful and how to improve it for better protein engineering outcomes, which we have summarized into the following guiding questions: (1) How should ML be used to determine the best combinations of multiple mutations on epistatic and nonepistatic protein fitness landscapes? (2) Which ZS predictors are useful in the context of native and non-native function? (3) How can ML approaches be improved to identify protein variants with high fitness more efficiently? The considerations are highlighted in Figure 3. Answering these questions is critical for advancing ML-assisted protein fitness optimization and will require new ML methods as well as new sequence-fitness data sets.

Combining Mutations on Epistatic and Nonepistatic Protein Fitness Landscapes

ML-assisted directed evolution (MLDE) is a specific implementation which uses supervised ML to predict the fitnesses of protein variants with multiple mutations. MLDE was demonstrated on the GB1 data set—this data set is from a combinatorial library in which four residues (with high degrees of epistasis,) were mutated simultaneously to all possible amino acids and fitness was measured by binding to an immunoglobulin protein. On this particular protein fitness landscape, MLDE was more effective than traditional protein engineering methods: it outperformed baselines such as DE using a single-step greedy walk. MLDE allowed for bigger jumps in sequence space to avoid getting stuck at local optima, which are more prevalent on highly epistatic (rugged) landscapes (Figure 3A). ML methods may be particularly beneficial where few samples are measured by assays and used for training (the low N regime)., In a wet-lab validation, MLDE was used to identify a combination of mutations that resulted in an enzyme that could perform enantioselective carbon–silicon bond formation with high yield.

Still, methods are needed to evaluate the prevalence of epistasis in a chosen design space to predict the utility of using MLDE over traditional approaches. As the number of simultaneously mutated residues increases, so will the epistatic complexity of the fitness landscape, and thus MLDE should be evaluated on combinatorial libraries with differing numbers of mutated sites. It is important to understand where epistatic interactions confound optimization by simple hill climbing (DE). Interacting residues near the active site of enzymes are likely to have more epistatic combinations of mutations, and the effects of mutations at these sites may be harder to predict. Similarly, studies should also explore how fitness landscapes are similar or different between different types of proteins, i.e., binding proteins, enzymes, and synthetic landscapes developed using evolutionary priors. Ultimately, combinatorial mutagenesis data sets on additional protein families are necessary for understanding when MLDE is useful. In addition to developing high-throughput assays to map protein sequences to fitnesses,− it will be important to develop general and realistic mathematical models to describe protein fitness landscapes (Figure 3A).,−

Alternatively, if a design space is believed to have minimal epistasis, it may be effective to assume that single mutation effects are largely additive and use recombination of beneficial mutations to find improvements. In current DE workflows, beneficial mutations found in experimental screens are mixed using methods such as DNA shuffling or StEP recombination., Experimental screens usually measure only a fraction of all possible single mutants, unless all sites are subjected to saturation mutagenesis, which can be time- and cost-prohibitive. Several promising studies have shown that supervised ML models can generally extrapolate well from a subset of single mutants to all possible single mutants of a protein on deep mutational scanning (DMS) landscapes, looking at natural function., These studies should be extended to understand how effective ML is for predicting recombination outcomes or choosing sites for further exploration.

Developing a Better Understanding of Zero-Shot Predictors for Different Protein Families and Functions

ZS predictors can help guide engineering toward higher protein fitness without any labeled data from experimental screens. In focused-training MLDE (ftMLDE), sampling training libraries with variants having favorable ZS scores yielded ML models with better performance than random sampling. Single mutant fitness prediction is also improved by combining sequence encodings with ZS scores, and proteins can possibly be engineered toward higher fitness using evolutionary ZS scores alone. For example, antibodies were engineered toward higher binding affinity using PLM likelihoods and higher virus neutralization using inverse folding models despite only screening 20–30 variants per round. Luciferase and chorismate mutase enzyme variants with higher stability and activity have also been identified using evolutionary ZS scores.− The potential to improve protein engineering outcomes using ZS scores has warranted significant attention (reviewed here), as calculating ZS scores does not require collecting fitness labels through expensive experimental assays. However, a method based purely on evolutionary conservation may have limitations.

Many ZS predictors have only been extensively evaluated on data sets measuring native function or activity, such as the ProteinGym DMS data sets. For example, ZS scores based on MSAs can predict protein variants that are more likely based on evolutionary conservation and coevolution.,− Likelihoods derived from PLMs trained on known protein sequences,,,− and inverse folding models,, are also able to learn these implicit evolutionary and biochemical constraints (Figure 3B). There are additional efforts to improve the accuracy of ZS predictors by using structure and reducing bias toward variants with many mutations., However, none of these models capture function that is not found in nature, and most studies have focused on well-studied protein families. Thus, ZS predictors need to be evaluated on proteins from different families for native and non-native functions.

Engineering enzymes for non-native activity can be challenging because many mutations that are beneficial to activity are also destabilizing.,, Proteins can tolerate such destabilizing mutations only up to a threshold, beyond which the protein will be unfolded. Thus, computed stability (ΔΔGmut-wt) as a ZS score will be more correlated with fitness if the protein is marginally stable, as destabilization is more likely to cause loss of function in these proteins, such as on GB1., A highly stable protein, on the other hand, can tolerate multiple destabilizing mutations before it loses function; stability effects will likely not be correlated with activity for such a protein. In short, the predictive power of various ZS scores should be evaluated on existing and future data sets, to understand whether protein function, family, or other biochemical insights can be used to decide which ZS scores will be useful for a particular engineering goal.

Expanding the Power of ML Methods to Optimize Protein Fitness

There is also a critical need to improve supervised ML approaches to better capture patterns in data to more efficiently identify variants with high fitness. Developing higher throughput screens to obtain more data is one way to achieve improved model performance, but that of course will also improve the performance of the laboratory approach alone. In this Outlook, we focus on computational approaches that can lead to better predictions from ML models.

There is significant potential for developing more effective representations of proteins, and alongside them, evaluation metrics for these representations., The most simplified encodings used in ML models linking sequence to fitness include one-hot encodings of amino acid types and Georgiev parameters capturing fixed amino acid descriptors. As an alternative, learned embeddings can be extracted from PLMs, such as those mentioned above. While these representations can offer performance boosts for certain tasks, they have not yet offered significant performance boosts compared to simple sequence encodings for supervised fitness prediction in MLDE or relevant protein engineering benchmarks such as predicting multimutant fitness from the fitness effects of single mutations., Fine-tuning and semisupervised learning are other strategies to augment model performance when only a small amount of labeled data is available; this has shown initial promise but should be explored further. Additional benchmarks are needed to evaluate whether learned embeddings are more effective for ML-assisted protein fitness prediction.

As an alternative to PLMs, there are efforts to improve representations of proteins using multimodal data (Figure 3C). It is generally agreed that for many proteins, sequence determines structure, and structure strongly influences function. Thus, there have been efforts to enrich protein representations by incorporating structural information using voxels, contact maps, or graph neural networks.− However, these have not led to significant performance improvements, likely because variant structures vary in subtle yet impactful ways which are challenging to model and extremely difficult to observe experimentally, despite an explosion in protein structure prediction tools. Many available protein structures may be quite noisy or inaccurate. In addition, proteins do not carry out their functions as static structures, which means that features such as dynamics and conformational changes, which could be generated using physics-based simulations or measured with experimental spectroscopic methods, could be useful.− Because many protein fitness tasks involve variants with very few mutations from a parent protein, future efforts should explore whether representations can be learned locally on protein variants as opposed to global databases. Potentially these representations could then be fine-tuned for fitness prediction.

There has also been limited work exploring active-site focused representations,− as the shape and electronics of an enzyme active site can strongly influence its reactivity. A related approach is taken by MutCompute, which trains a model to classify wild-type amino acids, based on their neighboring structural microenvironments., MutCompute was successfully used in wet-lab experiments to enhance the activity of hydrolases for PET depolymerization (plastic degradation). Joint protein–substrate representations have been studied to predict enzymatic activity for various substrate transformations, but these joint models did not perform better than independent models., Additionally, there exist deep learning methods that can dock substrates with proteins to predict their joint structures., A future generalized enzyme fitness prediction model would be able to incorporate multimodal information about both protein and substrate and simultaneously predict important properties such as expression, stability, and activity for various reactions (Figure 3C). Such models would be highly practical and impactful.

Protein fitness optimization is well suited for active learning on an expanded search space, and this area of research has significant room for growth (Figure 3D).,,, Broadly, active learning is an iterative cycle that alternates between wet-lab experiments to synthesize/screen enzymes and computational modeling to propose the next set of enzymes to test, typically guided by uncertainty quantification. The goal of finding a protein variant with maximum (or at least greatly improved) fitness, is particularly aligned with Bayesian optimization (BO), which is a form of active learning. Several studies have used Gaussian process models with BO to optimize chimeric proteins.,,, In an early wet-lab example, P450 enzyme thermostability was improved efficiently using an iterative BO approach. However, to engineer new enzymatic activities, protein variants with point mutations may be more interesting and promising to explore.− BO approaches with adaptive sampling have been tested on existing data sets,− and meta learning has been explored as way to utilize clean and noisy data for antibody engineering. An active-learning approach would more efficiently find solutions in larger design spaces, thus allowing protein engineers to expand their search to sequences with increased numbers of mutations at increased numbers of sites simultaneously mutated. An added advantage over DE is that BO allows for optimization of multiple properties simultaneously in a mathematically principled way.

At the same time, new classes of ML models should be developed for protein fitness prediction to take advantage of uncertainty and introduce helpful inductive biases for the domain., There exist methods that take advantage of inductive biases and prior information about proteins, such as the assumption that most mutation effects are additive or incorporation of biophysical knowledge into models as priors.− Another method biases the search toward variants with fewer mutations, which are more likely to be stable and functional. Domain-specific self-supervision has been explored by training models on codons rather than amino acid sequences.,, There are also efforts to utilize calibrated uncertainty about predicted fitnesses of proteins that lie out of the domain of previously screened proteins from the training set, but there is a need to expand and further test these methods in real settings., It is still an open question whether supervised models can extrapolate beyond their training data to predict novel proteins., More expressive deep learning methods, such as deep kernels,, could be explored as an alternative to Gaussian processes for uncertainty quantification in BO. Overall, there is significant potential to improve ML-based protein fitness prediction to help guide the search toward proteins with ideal fitness.

Conclusion: Toward General, Self-Driven Protein Engineering

ML can complement many steps in existing enzyme engineering workflows, and it will play an increasingly important role in the future. Before beginning an enzyme fitness improvement campaign, classification models and generative ML models have the potential to unlock new enzymes with diverse functions, evolvabilities, and folds. Afterward, supervised ML offers a unique opportunity to accelerate protein fitness optimization by more efficiently choosing which protein variants to synthesize and screen, and it can suggest protein variants that would not normally be considered by the limited scope of DE.

On the computational side, there remain many open questions about how to use ML for enzyme engineering, and which ML-assisted methods would have the most real-world impact if successful. In this Outlook, we have suggested that discovery and generation should focus on identifying promiscuous and evolvable enzymes with new activities and folds. A wealth of diverse protein starting points remain to be discovered, and ML is well suited to identify patterns and efficiently sift through the haystack of existing proteins. ML has also demonstrated utility for navigating protein fitness landscapes, but we believe that a greater understanding of epistasis and the role of various ZS predictors is needed. Furthermore, ML models mapping sequence to fitness would benefit from improved representations of protein variants, utilization of uncertainty in predictions, and tailored models with inductive biases relevant to proteins. Here, ML allows for bigger jumps in protein sequence space than would be possible with DE. Perhaps in the future, the optimization step may not even be necessary if protein fitness information can be incorporated into generative models as part of the discovery step.

Protein fitness improvement is poised to become a fully automated process, with implications across many industries. There is already work on developing automated evolution systems and integrating these into active learning workflows where data generated from automated experiments can train and refine ML models to suggest beneficial variants to explore further.,, These “design-build-test-learn” cycles would enable continuous optimization of enzymes and other proteins (Figure 4), as they can for small molecules. LLMs could power these automated systems, with AI flexibly adapting to perform new types of syntheses and screens with robotic scripts written on the fly.− At the same time, multiple desirable properties and activity for multiple reactions could be optimized simultaneously during protein engineering campaigns, powered by generalized ML models that can utilize multimodal representations of proteins. With ever increasing amounts of data on protein structures and sequence-fitness pairs, and new tools to conduct experiments− and make ML methods for proteins more accessible to the broader community, the future of ML-assisted protein engineering is bright.

References 249

  1. 1.

    Arnold F. H. Directed Evolution: Bringing New Chemistry to Life. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2018, 57 (16), 4143–4148..

    Not in our library10.1002/anie.201708408 (opens in a new tab)

  2. 2.

    Bell E. L.; Finnigan W.; France S. P.; Green A. P.; Hayes M. A.; Hepworth L. J.; Lovelock S. L.; Niikura H.; Osuna S.; Romero E.; Ryan K. S.; Turner N. J.; Flitsch S. L. Biocatalysis. Nat. Rev. Methods Primer 2021, 1 (1), 46.

    Not in our library10.1038/s43586-021-00044-z (opens in a new tab)

  3. 3.

    Buller R.; Lutz S.; Kazlauskas R. J.; Snajdrova R.; Moore J. C.; Bornscheuer U. T. From Nature to Industry: Harnessing Enzymes for Biocatalysis. Science 2023, 382 (6673), eadh8615.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.adh8615 (opens in a new tab)

  4. 4.

    Romero P. A.; Arnold F. H. Exploring Protein Fitness Landscapes by Directed Evolution. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Bio 2009, 10, 866–876..

    Not in our library10.1038/nrm2805 (opens in a new tab)

  5. 5.

    Pierce N. A.; Winfree E. Protein Design Is NP-Hard. Protein Eng. Des. Sel. 2002, 15 (10), 779–782..

    Not in our library10.1093/protein/15.10.779 (opens in a new tab)

  6. 6.

    Chen K.; Arnold F. H. Engineering New Catalytic Activities in Enzymes. Nat. Catal. 2020, 3 (3), 203–213..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41929-019-0385-5 (opens in a new tab)

  7. 7.

    Packer M. S.; Liu D. R. Methods for the Directed Evolution of Proteins. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2015, 16 (7), 379–394..

    Not in our library10.1038/nrg3927 (opens in a new tab)

  8. 8.

    Wang Y.; Xue P.; Cao M.; Yu T.; Lane S. T.; Zhao H. Directed Evolution: Methodologies and Applications. Chem. Rev. 2021, 121 (20), 12384–12444..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.chemrev.1c00260 (opens in a new tab)

  9. 9.

    Bornscheuer U. T.; Huisman G. W.; Kazlauskas R. J.; Lutz S.; Moore J. C.; Robins K. Engineering the Third Wave of Biocatalysis. Nature 2012, 485 (7397), 185–194..

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11117 (opens in a new tab)

  10. 10.

    Miller D. C.; Athavale S. V.; Arnold F. H. Combining Chemistry and Protein Engineering for New-to-Nature Biocatalysis. Nat. Synth. 2022, 1 (1), 18–23..

    Not in our library10.1038/s44160-021-00008-x (opens in a new tab)

  11. 11.

    Leveson-Gower R. B.; Mayer C.; Roelfes G. The Importance of Catalytic Promiscuity for Enzyme Design and Evolution. Nat. Rev. Chem. 2019, 3 (12), 687–705..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41570-019-0143-x (opens in a new tab)

  12. 12.

    Knight A. M.; Kan S. B. J.; Lewis R. D.; Brandenberg O. F.; Chen K.; Arnold F. H. Diverse Engineered Heme Proteins Enable Stereodivergent Cyclopropanation of Unactivated Alkenes. ACS Cent. Sci. 2018, 4 (3), 372–377..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscentsci.7b00548 (opens in a new tab)

  13. 13.

    Bedbrook C. N.; Rice A. J.; Yang K. K.; Ding X.; Chen S.; LeProust E. M.; Gradinaru V.; Arnold F. H. Structure-Guided SCHEMA Recombination Generates Diverse Chimeric Channelrhodopsins. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2017, 114 (13), E2624–E2633..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1700269114 (opens in a new tab)

  14. 14.

    Voigt C. A.; Martinez C.; Wang Z.-G.; Mayo S. L.; Arnold F. H. Protein Building Blocks Preserved by Recombination. Nat. Struct. Biol. 2002, 9 (7), 553–558..

    Not in our library10.1038/nsb805 (opens in a new tab)

  15. 15.

    Merkl R.; Sterner R. Ancestral Protein Reconstruction: Techniques and Applications. Biol. Chem. 2016, 397 (1), 1–21..

    Not in our library10.1515/hsz-2015-0158 (opens in a new tab)

  16. 16.

    Alford R. F.; Leaver-Fay A.; Jeliazkov J. R.; O’Meara M. J.; DiMaio F. P.; Park H.; Shapovalov M. V.; Renfrew P. D.; Mulligan V. K.; Kappel K.; Labonte J. W.; Pacella M. S.; Bonneau R.; Bradley P.; Dunbrack R. L.; Das R.; Baker D.; Kuhlman B.; Kortemme T.; Gray J. J. The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 2017, 13 (6), 3031–3048..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 (opens in a new tab)

  17. 17.

    Goldenzweig A.; Goldsmith M.; Hill S. E.; Gertman O.; Laurino P.; Ashani Y.; Dym O.; Unger T.; Albeck S.; Prilusky J.; Lieberman R. L.; Aharoni A.; Silman I.; Sussman J. L.; Tawfik D. S.; Fleishman S. J. Automated Structure- and Sequence-Based Design of Proteins for High Bacterial Expression and Stability. Mol. Cell 2016, 63 (2), 337–346..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2016.06.012 (opens in a new tab)

  18. 18.

    Khersonsky O.; Lipsh R.; Avizemer Z.; Ashani Y.; Goldsmith M.; Leader H.; Dym O.; Rogotner S.; Trudeau D. L.; Prilusky J.; Amengual-Rigo P.; Guallar V.; Tawfik D. S.; Fleishman S. J. Automated Design of Efficient and Functionally Diverse Enzyme Repertoires. Mol. Cell 2018, 72 (1), 178–186..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.molcel.2018.08.033 (opens in a new tab)

  19. 19.

    Weinstein J. J.; Goldenzweig A.; Hoch S.; Fleishman S. J. PROSS 2: A New Server for the Design of Stable and Highly Expressed Protein Variants. Bioinformatics 2021, 37 (1), 123–125..

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btaa1071 (opens in a new tab)

  20. 20.

    Leman J. K.; Weitzner B. D.; Lewis S. M.; Adolf-Bryfogle J.; Alam N.; Alford R. F.; Aprahamian M.; Baker D.; Barlow K. A.; Barth P.; Basanta B.; Bender B. J.; Blacklock K.; Bonet J.; Boyken S. E.; Bradley P.; Bystroff C.; Conway P.; Cooper S.; Correia B. E.; Coventry B.; Das R.; De Jong R. M.; DiMaio F.; Dsilva L.; Dunbrack R.; Ford A. S.; Frenz B.; Fu D. Y.; Geniesse C.; Goldschmidt L.; Gowthaman R.; Gray J. J.; Gront D.; Guffy S.; Horowitz S.; Huang P.-S.; Huber T.; Jacobs T. M.; Jeliazkov J. R.; Johnson D. K.; Kappel K.; Karanicolas J.; Khakzad H.; Khar K. R.; Khare S. D.; Khatib F.; Khramushin A.; King I. C.; Kleffner R.; Koepnick B.; Kortemme T.; Kuenze G.; Kuhlman B.; Kuroda D.; Labonte J. W.; Lai J. K.; Lapidoth G.; Leaver-Fay A.; Lindert S.; Linsky T.; London N.; Lubin J. H.; Lyskov S.; Maguire J.; Malmström L.; Marcos E.; Marcu O.; Marze N. A.; Meiler J.; Moretti R.; Mulligan V. K.; Nerli S.; Norn C.; Ó’Conchúir S.; Ollikainen N.; Ovchinnikov S.; Pacella M. S.; Pan X.; Park H.; Pavlovicz R. E.; Pethe M.; Pierce B. G.; Pilla K. B.; Raveh B.; Renfrew P. D.; Burman S. S. R.; Rubenstein A.; Sauer M. F.; Scheck A.; Schief W.; Schueler-Furman O.; Sedan Y.; Sevy A. M.; Sgourakis N. G.; Shi L.; Siegel J. B.; Silva D.-A.; Smith S.; Song Y.; Stein A.; Szegedy M.; Teets F. D.; Thyme S. B.; Wang R. Y.-R.; Watkins A.; Zimmerman L.; Bonneau R. Macromolecular Modeling and Design in Rosetta: Recent Methods and Frameworks. Nat. Methods 2020, 17 (7), 665–680..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-020-0848-2 (opens in a new tab)

  21. 21.

    Schymkowitz J.; Borg J.; Stricher F.; Nys R.; Rousseau F.; Serrano L. The FoldX Web Server: An Online Force Field. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005, 33, W382–W388..

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gki387 (opens in a new tab)

  22. 22.

    Siegel J. B.; Zanghellini A.; Lovick H. M.; Kiss G.; Lambert A. R.; St Clair J. L.; Gallaher J. L.; Hilvert D.; Gelb M. H.; Stoddard B. L.; Houk K. N.; Michael F. E.; Baker D. Computational Design of an Enzyme Catalyst for a Stereoselective Bimolecular Diels-Alder Reaction. Science 2010, 329 (5989), 309–313..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1190239 (opens in a new tab)

  23. 23.

    Kalvet I.; Ortmayer M.; Zhao J.; Crawshaw R.; Ennist N. M.; Levy C.; Roy A.; Green A. P.; Baker D. Design of Heme Enzymes with a Tunable Substrate Binding Pocket Adjacent to an Open Metal Coordination Site. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145 (26), 14307–14315..

    Not in our library10.1021/jacs.3c02742 (opens in a new tab)

  24. 24.

    Huang P.-S.; Boyken S. E.; Baker D. The Coming of Age of de Novo Protein Design. Nature 2016, 537 (7620), 320–327..

    Not in our library10.1038/nature19946 (opens in a new tab)

  25. 25.

    Smith J. M. Natural Selection and the Concept of a Protein Space. Nature 1970, 225, 563–564..

    Not in our library10.1038/225563a0 (opens in a new tab)

  26. 26.

    Drummond D. A.; Silberg J. J.; Meyer M. M.; Wilke C. O.; Arnold F. H. On the Conservative Nature of Intragenic Recombination. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2005, 102 (15), 5380–5385..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0500729102 (opens in a new tab)

  27. 27.

    Zhao H.; Giver L.; Shao Z.; Affholter J. A.; Arnold F. H. Molecular Evolution by Staggered Extension Process (StEP) in Vitro Recombination. Nat. Biotechnol. 1998, 16 (3), 258–261..

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt0398-258 (opens in a new tab)

  28. 28.

    Yang K. K.; Wu Z.; Arnold F. H. Machine-Learning-Guided Directed Evolution for Protein Engineering. Nat. Methods 2019, 16 (8), 687–694..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-019-0496-6 (opens in a new tab)

  29. 29.

    Wittmann B. J.; Johnston K. E.; Wu Z.; Arnold F. H. Advances in Machine Learning for Directed Evolution. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2021, 69, 11–18..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2021.01.008 (opens in a new tab)

  30. 30.

    Freschlin C. R.; Fahlberg S. A.; Romero P. A. Machine Learning to Navigate Fitness Landscapes for Protein Engineering. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2022, 75, 102713.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.copbio.2022.102713 (opens in a new tab)

  31. 31.

    Hie B. L.; Yang K. K. Adaptive Machine Learning for Protein Engineering. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2022, 72, 145–152..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2021.11.002 (opens in a new tab)

  32. 32.

    Ferguson A. L.; Ranganathan R. 100th Anniversary of Macromolecular Science Viewpoint: Data-Driven Protein Design. ACS Macro Lett. 2021, 10 (3), 327–340..

    Not in our library10.1021/acsmacrolett.0c00885 (opens in a new tab)

  33. 33.

    Mardikoraem M.; Woldring D. Machine Learning-Driven Protein Library Design: A Path Toward Smarter Libraries. In Yeast Surface Display; Traxlmayr M. W., Ed.; Springer U.S.: New York, NY, 2022; pp 87–104.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-0716-2285-8_5 (opens in a new tab)

  34. 34.

    Yu T.; Boob A. G.; Volk M. J.; Liu X.; Cui H.; Zhao H. Machine Learning-Enabled Retrobiosynthesis of Molecules. Nat. Catal. 2023, 6 (2), 137–151..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41929-022-00909-w (opens in a new tab)

  35. 35.

    Strokach A.; Kim P. M. Deep Generative Modeling for Protein Design. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2022, 72, 226–236..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2021.11.008 (opens in a new tab)

  36. 36.

    Johnston K. E.; Fannjiang C.; Wittmann B. J.; Hie B. L.; Yang K. K.; Wu Z. Machine Learning for Protein Engineering; 2023.

    Not in our library

  37. 37.
    Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering · 2023
    No notice
  38. 38.
    UniProt: the Universal Protein Knowledgebase in 2023 · 2022
    No notice
  39. 39.

    Mak W. S.; Tran S.; Marcheschi R.; Bertolani S.; Thompson J.; Baker D.; Liao J. C.; Siegel J. B. Integrative Genomic Mining for Enzyme Function to Enable Engineering of a Non-Natural Biosynthetic Pathway. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6 (1), 10005.

    Not in our library10.1038/ncomms10005 (opens in a new tab)

  40. 40.

    Yu T.; Cui H.; Li J. C.; Luo Y.; Jiang G.; Zhao H. Enzyme Function Prediction Using Contrastive Learning. Science 2023, 379 (6639), 1358–1363..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.adf2465 (opens in a new tab)

  41. 41.

    Zheng L.; Shi S.; Fang P.; Zhang H.; Pan Z.; Huang S.; Xia W.; Li H.; Zeng Z.; Zhang S.; Chen Y.; Lu M.; Li Z.; Zhu F. AnnoPRO: An Innovative Strategy for Protein Function Annotation Based on Image-like Protein Representation and Multimodal Deep Learning. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.05.13.540619 (opens in a new tab)

  42. 42.

    Bileschi M. L.; Belanger D.; Bryant D. H.; Sanderson T.; Carter B.; Sculley D.; Bateman A.; DePristo M. A.; Colwell L. J. Using Deep Learning to Annotate the Protein Universe. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022, 40 (6), 932–937..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-021-01179-w (opens in a new tab)

  43. 43.

    Feehan R.; Franklin M. W.; Slusky J. S. G. Machine Learning Differentiates Enzymatic and Non-Enzymatic Metals in Proteins. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12 (1), 3712.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-021-24070-3 (opens in a new tab)

  44. 44.

    Dickson A. M.; Mofrad M. R. K. Fine-Tuning Protein Embeddings for Generalizable Annotation Propagation. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.06.22.546084 (opens in a new tab)

  45. 45.

    Li F.; Yuan L.; Lu H.; Li G.; Chen Y.; Engqvist M. K. M.; Kerkhoven E. J.; Nielsen J. Deep Learning-Based Kcat Prediction Enables Improved Enzyme-Constrained Model Reconstruction. Nat. Catal. 2022, 5 (8), 662–672..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41929-022-00798-z (opens in a new tab)

  46. 46.

    Thurimella K.; Mohamed A. M. T.; Graham D. B.; Owens R. M.; La Rosa S. L.; Plichta D. R.; Bacallado S.; Xavier R. J. Protein Language Models Uncover Carbohydrate-Active Enzyme Function in Metagenomics.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.23.563620 (opens in a new tab)

  47. 47.

    Derry A.; Altman R. B. Explainable Protein Function Annotation Using Local Structure Embeddings. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.13.562298 (opens in a new tab)

  48. 48.

    Buton N.; Coste F.; Le Cunff Y. Predicting Enzymatic Function of Protein Sequences with Attention. Bioinformatics 2023, 39 (10), btad620.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btad620 (opens in a new tab)

  49. 49.

    Visani G. M.; Hughes M. C.; Hassoun S. Enzyme Promiscuity Prediction Using Hierarchy-Informed Multi-Label Classification. Bioinformatics 2021, 37 (14), 2017–2024..

    Not in our library10.1093/bioinformatics/btab054 (opens in a new tab)

  50. 50.

    Schwaller P.; Laino T.; Gaudin T.; Bolgar P.; Hunter C. A.; Bekas C.; Lee A. A. Molecular Transformer: A Model for Uncertainty-Calibrated Chemical Reaction Prediction. ACS Cent. Sci. 2019, 5 (9), 1572–1583..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscentsci.9b00576 (opens in a new tab)

  51. 51.

    Yang K.; Swanson K.; Jin W.; Coley C.; Eiden P.; Gao H.; Guzman-Perez A.; Hopper T.; Kelley B.; Mathea M.; Palmer A.; Settels V.; Jaakkola T.; Jensen K.; Barzilay R. Analyzing Learned Molecular Representations for Property Prediction. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2019, 59 (8), 3370–3388..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jcim.9b00237 (opens in a new tab)

  52. 52.

    Kreutter D.; Schwaller P.; Reymond J.-L. Predicting Enzymatic Reactions with a Molecular Transformer. Chem. Sci. 2021, 12 (25), 8648–8659..

    Not in our library10.1039/d1sc02362d (opens in a new tab)

  53. 53.
    Automatic Chemical Design Using a Data-Driven Continuous Representation of Molecules · 2018
    Not checked
  54. 54.

    Heid E.; Probst D.; Green W. H.; Madsen G. K. H. EnzymeMap: Curation, Validation and Data-Driven Prediction of Enzymatic Reactions. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.26434/chemrxiv-2023-jzw9w (opens in a new tab)

  55. 55.

    Lauterbach S.; Dienhart H.; Range J.; Malzacher S.; Spöring J.-D.; Rother D.; Pinto M. F.; Martins P.; Lagerman C. E.; Bommarius A. S.; Høst A. V.; Woodley J. M.; Ngubane S.; Kudanga T.; Bergmann F. T.; Rohwer J. M.; Iglezakis D.; Weidemann A.; Wittig U.; Kettner C.; Swainston N.; Schnell S.; Pleiss J. EnzymeML: Seamless Data Flow and Modeling of Enzymatic Data. Nat. Methods 2023, 20 (3), 400–402..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-022-01763-1 (opens in a new tab)

  56. 56.

    Groth P. M.; Michael R.; Salomon J.; Tian P.; Boomsma W. FLOP: Tasks for Fitness Landscapes Of Protein Wildtypes. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.06.21.545880 (opens in a new tab)

  57. 57.
    Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold · 2021
    No notice
  58. 58.
    Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network · 2021
    No notice
  59. 59.

    Lin Z.; Akin H.; Rao R.; Hie B.; Zhu Z.; Lu W.; Smetanin N.; Verkuil R.; Kabeli O.; Shmueli Y.; dos Santos Costa A.; Fazel-Zarandi M.; Sercu T.; Candido S.; Rives A. Evolutionary-Scale Prediction of Atomic-Level Protein Structure with a Language Model. Science 2023, 379 (6637), 1123–1130..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.ade2574 (opens in a new tab)

  60. 60.

    Wu R.; Ding F.; Wang R.; Shen R.; Zhang X.; Luo S.; Su C.; Wu Z.; Xie Q.; Berger B.; Ma J.; Peng J. High-Resolution de Novo Structure Prediction from Primary Sequence.bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.07.21.500999 (opens in a new tab)

  61. 61.

    Krishna R.; Wang J.; Ahern W.; Sturmfels P.; Venkatesh P.; Kalvet I.; Lee G. R.; Morey-Burrows F. S.; Anishchenko I.; Humphreys I. R.; McHugh R.; Vafeados D.; Li X.; Sutherland G. A.; Hitchcock A.; Hunter C. N.; Baek M.; DiMaio F.; Baker D. Generalized Biomolecular Modeling and Design with RoseTTAFold All-Atom. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.09.561603 (opens in a new tab)

  62. 62.

    Chowdhury R.; Bouatta N.; Biswas S.; Floristean C.; Kharkar A.; Roy K.; Rochereau C.; Ahdritz G.; Zhang J.; Church G. M.; Sorger P. K.; AlQuraishi M. Single-Sequence Protein Structure Prediction Using a Language Model and Deep Learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022, 40 (11), 1617–1623..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-022-01432-w (opens in a new tab)

  63. 63.
    Clustering predicted structures at the scale of the known protein universe · 2023
    No notice
  64. 64.

    Riziotis I. G.; Ribeiro A. J. M.; Borkakoti N.; Thornton J. M. The 3D Modules of Enzyme Catalysis: Deconstructing Active Sites into Distinct Functional Entities. J. Mol. Biol. 2023, 435 (20), 168254.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2023.168254 (opens in a new tab)

  65. 65.

    Hu B.; Tan C.; Xia J.; Zheng J.; Huang Y.; Wu L.; Liu Y.; Xu Y.; Li S. Z. Learning Complete Protein Representation by Deep Coupling of Sequence and Structure.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.07.05.547769 (opens in a new tab)

  66. 66.

    Ock J.; Guntuboina C.; Barati Farimani A. Catalyst Energy Prediction with CatBERTa: Unveiling Feature Exploration Strategies through Large Language Models. ACS Catal. 2023, 13 (24), 16032–16044..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscatal.3c04956 (opens in a new tab)

  67. 67.

    Luo R.; Sun L.; Xia Y.; Qin T.; Zhang S.; Poon H.; Liu T.-Y. BioGPT: Generative Pre-Trained Transformer for Biomedical Text Generation and Mining. Brief. Bioinform. 2022, 23 (6), bbac409.

    Not in our library10.1093/bib/bbac409 (opens in a new tab)

  68. 68.
    Structure-based protein function prediction using graph convolutional networks · 2021
    No notice
  69. 69.

    Yu Y.; Rué Casamajo A.; Finnigan W.; Schnepel C.; Barker R.; Morrill C.; Heath R. S.; De Maria L.; Turner N. J.; Scrutton N. S. Structure-Based Design of Small Imine Reductase Panels for Target Substrates. ACS Catal. 2023, 13, 12310–12321..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscatal.3c02278 (opens in a new tab)

  70. 70.
    Unraveling the functional dark matter through global metagenomics · 2023
    No notice
  71. 71.

    Lipsh-Sokolik R.; Khersonsky O.; Schroder S. P.; de Boer C.; Hoch S.-Y.; Davies G. J.; Overkleeft H. S.; Fleishman S. J. Combinatorial Assembly and Design of Enzymes. Science 2023, 379 (6628), 195–201..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.ade9434 (opens in a new tab)

  72. 72.

    Weinstein J. Y.; Martí-Gómez C.; Lipsh-Sokolik R.; Hoch S. Y.; Liebermann D.; Nevo R.; Weissman H.; Petrovich-Kopitman E.; Margulies D.; Ivankov D.; McCandlish D. M.; Fleishman S. J. Designed Active-Site Library Reveals Thousands of Functional GFP Variants. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14 (1), 2890.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-023-38099-z (opens in a new tab)

  73. 73.

    Barber-Zucker S.; Mateljak I.; Goldsmith M.; Kupervaser M.; Alcalde M.; Fleishman S. J. Designed High-Redox Potential Laccases Exhibit High Functional Diversity. ACS Catal. 2022, 12 (21), 13164–13173..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscatal.2c03006 (opens in a new tab)

  74. 74.

    Gomez De Santos P.; Mateljak I.; Hoang M. D.; Fleishman S. J.; Hollmann F.; Alcalde M. Repertoire of Computationally Designed Peroxygenases for Enantiodivergent C–H Oxyfunctionalization Reactions. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145 (6), 3443–3453..

    Not in our library10.1021/jacs.2c11118 (opens in a new tab)

  75. 75.

    Shroff R.; Cole A. W.; Diaz D. J.; Morrow B. R.; Donnell I.; Annapareddy A.; Gollihar J.; Ellington A. D.; Thyer R. Discovery of Novel Gain-of-Function Mutations Guided by Structure-Based Deep Learning. ACS Synth. Biol. 2020, 9 (11), 2927–2935..

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.0c00345 (opens in a new tab)

  76. 76.

    Kulikova A. V.; Diaz D. J.; Loy J. M.; Ellington A. D.; Wilke C. O. Learning the Local Landscape of Protein Structures with Convolutional Neural Networks. J. Biol. Phys. 2021, 47 (4), 435–454..

    Not in our library10.1007/s10867-021-09593-6 (opens in a new tab)

  77. 77.

    Lu H.; Diaz D. J.; Czarnecki N. J.; Zhu C.; Kim W.; Shroff R.; Acosta D. J.; Alexander B. R.; Cole H. O.; Zhang Y.; Lynd N. A.; Ellington A. D.; Alper H. S. Machine Learning-Aided Engineering of Hydrolases for PET Depolymerization. Nature 2022, 604 (7907), 662–667..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-022-04599-z (opens in a new tab)

  78. 78.

    Foley G.; Mora A.; Ross C. M.; Bottoms S.; Sützl L.; Lamprecht M. L.; Zaugg J.; Essebier A.; Balderson B.; Newell R.; Thomson R. E. S.; Kobe B.; Barnard R. T.; Guddat L.; Schenk G.; Carsten J.; Gumulya Y.; Rost B.; Haltrich D.; Sieber V.; Gillam E. M. J.; Bodén M. Engineering Indel and Substitution Variants of Diverse and Ancient Enzymes Using Graphical Representation of Ancestral Sequence Predictions (GRASP). PLOS Comput. Biol. 2022, 18 (10), e1010633.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010633 (opens in a new tab)

  79. 79.

    Livada J.; Vargas A. M.; Martinez C. A.; Lewis R. D. Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Enhances Gene Mining Efforts for Industrial Ene Reductases by Expanding Enzyme Panels with Thermostable Catalysts. ACS Catal. 2023, 13 (4), 2576–2585..

    Not in our library10.1021/acscatal.2c03859 (opens in a new tab)

  80. 80.
    Ancestral Reconstruction · 2016
    No notice
  81. 81.

    Ferruz N.; Heinzinger M.; Akdel M.; Goncearenco A.; Naef L.; Dallago C. From Sequence to Function through Structure: Deep Learning for Protein Design. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2023, 21, 238–250..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.csbj.2022.11.014 (opens in a new tab)

  82. 82.

    Ovchinnikov S.; Huang P.-S. Structure-Based Protein Design with Deep Learning. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2021, 65, 136–144..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.08.004 (opens in a new tab)

  83. 83.

    Ferruz N.; Höcker B. Controllable Protein Design with Language Models. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2022, 4 (6), 521–532..

    Not in our library10.1038/s42256-022-00499-z (opens in a new tab)

  84. 84.

    Winnifrith A.; Outeiral C.; Hie B. Generative Artificial Intelligence for de Novo Protein Design. arXiv2023. https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.09685.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2024.102794 (opens in a new tab)

  85. 85.

    Wu Z.; Johnston K. E.; Arnold F. H.; Yang K. K. Protein Sequence Design with Deep Generative Models. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 2021, 65, 18–27..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.04.004 (opens in a new tab)

  86. 86.

    Sevgen E.; M?ller J.; Lange A.; Parker J.; Quigley S.; Mayer J.; Srivastava P.; Gayatri S.; Hosfield D.; Korshunova M.; Livne M.; Gill M.; Ranganathan R.; Costa A. B.; Ferguson A. L. ProT-VAE: Protein Transformer Variational AutoEncoder for Functional Protein Design.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.01.23.525232 (opens in a new tab)

  87. 87.

    Praljak N.; Lian X.; Ranganathan R.; Ferguson A. L. ProtWave-VAE: Integrating Autoregressive Sampling with Latent-Based Inference for Data-Driven Protein Design. ACS Synth. Biol. 2023, 12 (12), 3544–3561..

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.3c00261 (opens in a new tab)

  88. 88.

    Madani A.; Krause B.; Greene E. R.; Subramanian S.; Mohr B. P.; Holton J. M.; Olmos J. L.; Xiong C.; Sun Z. Z.; Socher R.; Fraser J. S.; Naik N. Large Language Models Generate Functional Protein Sequences across Diverse Families. Nat. Biotechnol. 2023, 41, 1099.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-022-01618-2 (opens in a new tab)

  89. 89.
    Uncovering new families and folds in the natural protein universe · 2023
    No notice
  90. 90.

    Zvyagin M.; Brace A.; Hippe K.; Deng Y.; Zhang B.; Bohorquez C. O.; Clyde A.; Kale B.; Perez-Rivera D.; Ma H.; Mann C. M.; Irvin M.; Gregory Pauloski J.; Ward L.; Hayot-Sasson V.; Emani M.; Foreman S.; Xie Z.; Lin D.; Shukla M.; Nie W.; Romero J.; Dallago C.; Vahdat A.; Xiao C.; Gibbs T.; Foster I.; Davis J. J.; Papka M. E.; Brettin T.; Stevens R.; Anandkumar A.; Vishwanath V.; Ramanathan A. GenSLMs: Genome-Scale Language Models Reveal SARS-CoV-2 Evolutionary Dynamics. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.10.10.511571 (opens in a new tab)

  91. 91.

    Verkuil R.; Kabeli O.; Du Y.; Wicky B. I.; Milles L. F.; Dauparas J.; Baker D.; Ovchinnikov S.; Sercu T.; Rives A. Language Models Generalize beyond Natural Proteins 2022,.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.12.21.521521 (opens in a new tab)

  92. 92.

    Sgarbossa D.; Lupo U.; Bitbol A.-F. Generative Power of a Protein Language Model Trained on Multiple Sequence Alignments. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.04.14.488405 (opens in a new tab)

  93. 93.

    Nijkamp E.; Ruffolo J. A.; Weinstein E. N.; Naik N.; Madani A. ProGen2: Exploring the Boundaries of Protein Language Models. Cell Syst. 2023, 14 (11), 968–978..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2023.10.002 (opens in a new tab)

  94. 94.
    Protein design and variant prediction using autoregressive generative models · 2021
    No notice
  95. 95.

    Repecka D.; Jauniskis V.; Karpus L.; Rembeza E.; Rokaitis I.; Zrimec J.; Poviloniene S.; Laurynenas A.; Viknander S.; Abuajwa W.; Savolainen O.; Meskys R.; Engqvist M. K. M.; Zelezniak A. Expanding Functional Protein Sequence Spaces Using Generative Adversarial Networks. Nat. Mach. Intell. 2021, 3 (4), 324–333..

    Not in our library10.1038/s42256-021-00310-5 (opens in a new tab)

  96. 96.
    Generating functional protein variants with variational autoencoders · 2021
    No notice
  97. 97.

    Chen B.; Cheng X.; Geng Y.; Li S.; Zeng X.; Wang B.; Gong J.; Liu C.; Zeng A.; Dong Y.; Tang J.; Song L. xTrimoPGLM: Unified 100B-Scale Pre-Trained Transformer for Deciphering the Language of Protein.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.07.05.547496 (opens in a new tab)

  98. 98.
    ProtGPT2 is a deep unsupervised language model for protein design · 2022
    No notice
  99. 99.

    Alamdari S.; Thakkar N.; Van Den Berg R.; Lu A. X.; Fusi N.; Amini A. P.; Yang K. K. Protein Generation with Evolutionary Diffusion: Sequence Is All You Need. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.09.11.556673 (opens in a new tab)

  100. 100.

    Johnson S. R.; Fu X.; Viknander S.; Goldin C.; Monaco S.; Zelezniak A.; Yang K. K. Computational Scoring and Experimental Evaluation of Enzymes Generated by Neural Networks. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.03.04.531015 (opens in a new tab)

  101. 101.

    Ni B.; Kaplan D. L.; Buehler M. J. Generative Design of de Novo Proteins Based on Secondary-Structure Constraints Using an Attention-Based Diffusion Model. Chem. 2023, 9 (7), 1828–1849..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chempr.2023.03.020 (opens in a new tab)

  102. 102.
    Protein structure generation via folding diffusion · 2024
    No notice
  103. 103.
    Hallucinating symmetric protein assemblies · 2022
    No notice
  104. 104.
    De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion · 2023
    No notice
  105. 105.

    Trippe B. L.; Yim J.; Tischer D.; Baker D.; Broderick T.; Barzilay R.; Jaakkola T. Diffusion Probabilistic Modeling of Protein Backbones in 3D for the Motif-Scaffolding Problem. arXiv June 8, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2206.04119.

    Not in our library

  106. 106.

    Hie B.; Candido S.; Lin Z.; Kabeli O.; Rao R.; Smetanin N.; Sercu T.; Rives A. A High-Level Programming Language for Generative Protein Design. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.12.21.521526 (opens in a new tab)

  107. 107.
    De novo design of luciferases using deep learning · 2023
    No notice
  108. 108.
    Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN · 2022
    No notice
  109. 109.

    Anishchenko I.; Pellock S. J.; Chidyausiku T. M.; Ramelot T. A.; Ovchinnikov S.; Hao J.; Bafna K.; Norn C.; Kang A.; Bera A. K.; DiMaio F.; Carter L.; Chow C. M.; Montelione G. T.; Baker D. De Novo Protein Design by Deep Network Hallucination. Nature 2021, 600, 547–552..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-021-04184-w (opens in a new tab)

  110. 110.
    Scaffolding protein functional sites using deep learning · 2022
    No notice
  111. 111.

    Norn C.; Wicky B. I. M.; Juergens D.; Liu S.; Kim D.; Tischer D.; Koepnick B.; Anishchenko I.; Baker D.; Ovchinnikov S.; Coral A.; Bubar A. J.; Boykov A.; Valle Perez A. U.; MacMillan A.; Lubow A.; Mussini A.; Cai A.; Ardill A. J.; Seal A.; Kalantarian A.; Failer B.; Lackersteen B.; Chagot B.; Haight B. R.; Tastan B.; Uitham B.; Roy B. G.; de Melo Cruz B. R.; Echols B.; Lorenz B. E.; Blair B.; Kestemont B.; Eastlake C. D.; Bragdon C. J.; Vardeman C.; Salerno C.; Comisky C.; Hayman C. L.; Landers C. R; Zimov C.; Coleman C. D.; Painter C. R.; Ince C.; Lynagh C.; Malaniia D.; Wheeler D. C.; Robertson D.; Simon V.; Chisari E.; Kai E. L. J.; Rezae F.; Lengyel F.; Tabotta F.; Padelletti F.; Bostrom F.; Gross G. O.; McIlvaine G.; Beecher G.; Hansen G. T.; de Jong G.; Feldmann H.; Borman J. L.; Quinn J.; Norrgard J.; Truong J.; Diderich J. A.; Canfield J. M.; Photakis J.; Slone J. D.; Madzio J.; Mitchell J.; Stomieroski J. C.; Mitch J. H.; Altenbeck J. R.; Schinkler J.; Weinberg J. B.; Burbach J. D.; Sequeira da Costa J. C.; Bada Juarez J. F.; Gunnarsson J. P.; Harper K. D.; Joo K.; Clayton K. T.; DeFord K. E.; Scully K. F.; Gildea K. M.; Abbey K. J.; Kohli K. L.; Stenner K.; Takacs K.; Poussaint L. L.; Manalo L. C.; Withers L. C.; Carlson L.; Wei L.; Fisher L. R.; Carpenter L.; Ji-hwan M.; Ricci M.; Belcastro M. A.; Leniec M.; Hohmann M.; Thompson M.; Thayer M. A.; Gaebel M.; Cassidy M. D.; Fagiola M.; Lewis M.; Pfutzenreuter M.; Simon M.; Elmassry M. M.; Benevides N.; Kerr N. K.; Verma N.; Shannon O.; Yin O.; Wolfteich P.; Gummersall P.; Tłuscik P.ł; Gajar P.; Triggiani P. J.; Guha R.; Mathew Innes R. B.; Buchanan R.; Gamble R.; Leduc R.; Spearing R.; dos Santos Gomes R. L. C.; Estep R. D.; DeWitt R.; Moore R.; Shnider S. G.; Zaccanelli S. J.; Kuznetsov S.; Burillo-Sanz S.; Mooney S.; Vasiliy S.; Butkovich S. S.; Hudson S. B.; Pote S. L.; Denne S. P.; Schwegmann S. A.; Ratna S.; Kleinfelter S. C.; Bausewein T.; George T. J.; de Almeida T. S.; Yeginer U.; Barmettler W.; Pulley W. R.; Wright W. S.; Willyanto; Lansford W.; Hochart X.; Gaiji Y. A. S.; Lagodich Y.; Christian V. Protein Sequence Design by Conformational Landscape Optimization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021, 118 (11), e2017228118.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2017228118 (opens in a new tab)

  112. 112.

    Lin Y.; AlQuraishi M. Generating Novel, Designable, and Diverse Protein Structures by Equivariantly Diffusing Oriented Residue Clouds. arXiv June 6, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2301.12485.

    Not in our library

  113. 113.

    Subramanian A. M.; Thomson M. Unexplored Regions of the Protein Sequence-Structure Map Revealed at Scale by a Library of Foldtuned Language Models. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.12.22.573145 (opens in a new tab)

  114. 114.

    Bloom J. D.; Labthavikul S. T.; Otey C. R.; Arnold F. H. Protein Stability Promotes Evolvability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2006, 103 (15), 5869–5874..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0510098103 (opens in a new tab)

  115. 115.

    Tokuriki N.; Tawfik D. S. Stability Effects of Mutations and Protein Evolvability. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2009, 19 (5), 596–604..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2009.08.003 (opens in a new tab)

  116. 116.

    Kipnis Y.; Chaib A. O.; Vorobieva A. A.; Cai G.; Reggiano G.; Basanta B.; Kumar E.; Mittl P. R. E.; Hilvert D.; Baker D. Design and Optimization of Enzymatic Activity in a de Novo B-barrel Scaffold. Protein Sci. 2022, 31 (11), e4405.

    Not in our library10.1002/pro.4405 (opens in a new tab)

  117. 117.

    Chu A. E.; Fernandez D.; Liu J.; Eguchi R. R.; Huang P.-S. De Novo Design of a Highly Stable Ovoid TIM Barrel: Unlocking Pocket Shape towards Functional Design. BioDesign Res. 2022, 2022, 1–13..

    Not in our library10.34133/2022/9842315 (opens in a new tab)

  118. 118.

    Tokuriki N.; Tawfik D. S. Protein Dynamism and Evolvability. Science 2009, 324 (5924), 203–207..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1169375 (opens in a new tab)

  119. 119.

    Sumida K. H.; Núñez-Franco R.; Kalvet I.; Pellock S. J.; Wicky B. I. M.; Milles L. F.; Dauparas J.; Wang J.; Kipnis Y.; Jameson N.; Kang A.; De La Cruz J.; Sankaran B.; Bera A. K.; Jiménez-Osés G.; Baker D. Improving Protein Expression, Stability, and Function with ProteinMPNN. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.03.560713 (opens in a new tab)

  120. 120.

    Miton C. M.; Buda K.; Tokuriki N. Epistasis and Intramolecular Networks in Protein Evolution. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 2021, 69, 160–168..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.sbi.2021.04.007 (opens in a new tab)

  121. 121.

    Starr T. N.; Thornton J. W. Epistasis in Protein Evolution. Protein Sci. 2016, 25 (7), 1204–1218..

    Not in our library10.1002/pro.2897 (opens in a new tab)

  122. 122.

    Romero P. A.; Krause A.; Arnold F. H. Navigating the Protein Fitness Landscape with Gaussian Processes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2013, 110 (3), E193–E201..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1215251110 (opens in a new tab)

  123. 123.

    Mardikoraem M.; Woldring D. Protein Fitness Prediction Is Impacted by the Interplay of Language Models, Ensemble Learning, and Sampling Methods. Pharmaceutics 2023, 15 (5), 1337.

    Not in our library10.3390/pharmaceutics15051337 (opens in a new tab)

  124. 124.

    Xu Y.; Verma D.; Sheridan R. P.; Liaw A.; Ma J.; Marshall N. M.; McIntosh J.; Sherer E. C.; Svetnik V.; Johnston J. M. Deep Dive into Machine Learning Models for Protein Engineering. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2020, 60 (6), 2773–2790..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00073 (opens in a new tab)

  125. 125.

    Bryant D. H.; Bashir A.; Sinai S.; Jain N. K.; Ogden P. J.; Riley P. F.; Church G. M.; Colwell L. J.; Kelsic E. D. Deep Diversification of an AAV Capsid Protein by Machine Learning. Nat. Biotechnol. 2021, 39 (6), 691–696..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-020-00793-4 (opens in a new tab)

  126. 126.

    Saito Y.; Oikawa M.; Nakazawa H.; Niide T.; Kameda T.; Tsuda K.; Umetsu M. Machine-Learning-Guided Mutagenesis for Directed Evolution of Fluorescent Proteins. ACS Synth. Biol. 2018, 7 (9), 2014–2022..

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.8b00155 (opens in a new tab)

  127. 127.

    Hsu C.; Nisonoff H.; Fannjiang C.; Listgarten J. Learning Protein Fitness Models from Evolutionary and Assay-Labeled Data. Nat. Biotechnol. 2022, 40 (7), 1114–1122..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41587-021-01146-5 (opens in a new tab)

  128. 128.
    Efficient evolution of human antibodies from general protein language models · 2023
    No notice
  129. 129.

    Wittmann B. J.; Yue Y.; Arnold F. H. Informed Training Set Design Enables Efficient Machine Learning-Assisted Directed Protein Evolution. Cell Syst. 2021, 12 (11), 1026–1045..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2021.07.008 (opens in a new tab)

  130. 130.

    Bedbrook C. N.; Yang K. K.; Robinson J. E.; Mackey E. D.; Gradinaru V.; Arnold F. H. Machine Learning-Guided Channelrhodopsin Engineering Enables Minimally Invasive Optogenetics. Nat. Methods 2019, 16 (11), 1176–1184..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-019-0583-8 (opens in a new tab)

  131. 131.
    Machine learning-guided acyl-ACP reductase engineering for improved in vivo fatty alcohol production · 2021
    Not checked
  132. 132.
    Self-driving laboratories to autonomously navigate the protein fitness landscape · 2024
    No notice
  133. 133.

    Bedbrook C. N.; Yang K. K.; Rice A. J.; Gradinaru V.; Arnold F. H. Machine Learning to Design Integral Membrane Channelrhodopsins for Efficient Eukaryotic Expression and Plasma Membrane Localization. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2017, 13 (10), e1005786.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005786 (opens in a new tab)

  134. 134.

    Drummond D. A.; Iverson B. L.; Georgiou G.; Arnold F. H. Why High-Error-Rate Random Mutagenesis Libraries Are Enriched in Functional and Improved Proteins. J. Mol. Biol. 2005, 350 (4), 806–816..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2005.05.023 (opens in a new tab)

  135. 135.

    Park Y.; Metzger B. P. H.; Thornton J. W. The Simplicity of Protein Sequence-Function Relationships. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.09.02.556057 (opens in a new tab)

  136. 136.

    Olson C. A.; Wu N. C.; Sun R. A Comprehensive Biophysical Description of Pairwise Epistasis throughout an Entire Protein Domain. Curr. Biol. 2014, 24 (22), 2643–2651..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.072 (opens in a new tab)

  137. 137.
    Adaptation in protein fitness landscapes is facilitated by indirect paths · 2016
    No notice
  138. 138.

    Wu Z.; Kan S. B. J.; Lewis R. D.; Wittmann B. J.; Arnold F. H. Machine Learning-Assisted Directed Protein Evolution with Combinatorial Libraries. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116 (18), 8852–8858..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1901979116 (opens in a new tab)

  139. 139.

    Biswas S.; Khimulya G.; Alley E. C.; Esvelt K. M.; Church G. M. Low-N Protein Engineering with Data-Efficient Deep Learning. Nat. Methods 2021, 18 (4), 389–396..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-021-01100-y (opens in a new tab)

  140. 140.

    Van Der Flier F. J.; Estell D.; Pricelius S.; Dankmeyer L.; Van Stigt Thans S.; Mulder H.; Otsuka R.; Goedegebuur F.; Lammerts L.; Staphorst D.; Van Dijk A. D. J.; De Ridder D.; Redestig H. What Makes the Effect of Protein Mutations Difficult to Predict? bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.09.25.559319 (opens in a new tab)

  141. 141.

    Thomas N.; Agarwala A.; Belanger D.; Song Y. S.; Colwell L. Tuned Fitness Landscapes for Benchmarking Model-Guided Protein Design. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.10.28.514293 (opens in a new tab)

  142. 142.
    Single-mutation fitness landscapes for an enzyme on multiple substrates reveal specificity is globally encoded · 2017
    No notice
  143. 143.

    Markin C. J.; Mokhtari D. A.; Sunden F.; Appel M. J.; Akiva E.; Longwell S. A.; Sabatti C.; Herschlag D.; Fordyce P. M. Revealing Enzyme Functional Architecture via High-Throughput Microfluidic Enzyme Kinetics. Science 2021, 373 (6553), eabf8761.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.abf8761 (opens in a new tab)

  144. 144.

    Markin C. J.; Mokhtari D. A.; Du S.; Doukov T.; Sunden F.; Cook J. A.; Fordyce P. M.; Herschlag D. Decoupling of Catalysis and Transition State Analog Binding from Mutations throughout a Phosphatase Revealed by High-Throughput Enzymology. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2023, 120 (29), e2219074120.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2219074120 (opens in a new tab)

  145. 145.

    Faure A. J.; Domingo J.; Schmiedel J. M.; Hidalgo-Carcedo C.; Diss G.; Lehner B. Mapping the Energetic and Allosteric Landscapes of Protein Binding Domains. Nature 2022, 604 (7904), 175–183..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-022-04586-4 (opens in a new tab)

  146. 146.

    Faure A. J.; Martí-Aranda A.; Hidalgo-Carcedo C.; Schmiedel J. M.; Lehner B. The Genetic Architecture of Protein Stability. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.27.564339 (opens in a new tab)

  147. 147.
    Exposing the Limitations of Molecular Machine Learning with Activity Cliffs · 2022
    No notice
  148. 148.

    D’Costa S.; Hinds E. C.; Freschlin C. R.; Song H.; Romero P. A. Inferring Protein Fitness Landscapes from Laboratory Evolution Experiments. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2023, 19 (3), e1010956.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010956 (opens in a new tab)

  149. 149.

    Kauffman S. A.; Weinberger E. D. The NK Model of Rugged Fitness Landscapes and Its Application to Maturation of the Immune Response. J. Theor. Biol. 1989, 141 (2), 211–245..

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-5193(89)80019-0 (opens in a new tab)

  150. 150.

    Papkou A.; Garcia-Pastor L.; Escudero J. A.; Wagner A. A Rugged yet Easily Navigable Fitness Landscape. Science 2023, 382 (6673), eadh3860.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.adh3860 (opens in a new tab)

  151. 151.

    Notin P.; Dias M.; Frazer J.; Marchena-Hurtado J.; Gomez A.; Marks D. S.; Gal Y. Tranception: Protein Fitness Prediction with Autoregressive Transformers and Inference-Time Retrieval. arXiv May 27, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.13760.

    Not in our library

  152. 152.

    Hie B. L.; Yang K. K.; Kim P. S. Evolutionary Velocity with Protein Language Models Predicts Evolutionary Dynamics of Diverse Proteins. Cell Syst. 2022, 13 (4), 274–285..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2022.01.003 (opens in a new tab)

  153. 153.

    Shanker V. R.; Bruun T. U. J.; Hie B. L.; Kim P. S. Inverse Folding of Protein Complexes with a Structure-Informed Language Model Enables Unsupervised Antibody Evolution. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.12.19.572475 (opens in a new tab)

  154. 154.

    Xie W. J.; Liu D.; Wang X.; Zhang A.; Wei Q.; Nandi A.; Dong S.; Warshel A. Enhancing Luciferase Activity and Stability through Generative Modeling of Natural Enzyme Sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2023, 120 (48), e2312848120.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2312848120 (opens in a new tab)

  155. 155.

    Russ W. P.; Figliuzzi M.; Stocker C.; Barrat-Charlaix P.; Socolich M.; Kast P.; Hilvert D.; Monasson R.; Cocco S.; Weigt M.; Ranganathan R. An Evolution-Based Model for Designing Chorismate Mutase Enzymes. Science 2020, 369 (6502), 440–445..

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aba3304 (opens in a new tab)

  156. 156.

    Xie W. J.; Asadi M.; Warshel A. Enhancing Computational Enzyme Design by a Maximum Entropy Strategy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2022, 119 (7), e2122355119.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2122355119 (opens in a new tab)

  157. 157.

    Shu W.; Cheng P.; Mao C.; Tang J.; Yang S.; Gu Q.; Han W.; Chen Y.; Zhou J.; Li W.; Pan A.; Zhao S.; Huang X.; Zhang J.; Zhu S.; Wang S.-Q. Zero-Shot Prediction of Mutation Effects on Protein Function with Multimodal Deep Representation Learning. In Review; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.21203/rs.3.rs-3358917/v1 (opens in a new tab)

  158. 158.

    Xie W. J.; Warshel A. Harnessing Generative AI to Decode Enzyme Catalysis and Evolution for Enhanced Engineering. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.10.561808 (opens in a new tab)

  159. 159.

    Hopf T. A.; Ingraham J. B.; Poelwijk F. J.; Schärfe C. P. I.; Springer M.; Sander C.; Marks D. S. Mutation Effects Predicted from Sequence Co-Variation. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017, 35 (2), 128–135..

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3769 (opens in a new tab)

  160. 160.

    Riesselman A. J.; Ingraham J. B.; Marks D. S. Deep Generative Models of Genetic Variation Capture the Effects of Mutations. Nat. Methods 2018, 15 (10), 816–822..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-018-0138-4 (opens in a new tab)

  161. 161.

    Frazer J.; Notin P.; Dias M.; Gomez A.; Min J. K.; Brock K.; Gal Y.; Marks D. S. Disease Variant Prediction with Deep Generative Models of Evolutionary Data. Nature 2021, 599 (7883), 91–95..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-021-04043-8 (opens in a new tab)

  162. 162.

    Rao R. M.; Liu J.; Verkuil R.; Meier J.; Canny J.; Abbeel P.; Sercu T.; Rives A. MSA Transformer. In Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning; Meila M., Zhang T., Eds.; Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; PMLR, 2021; Vol. 139, pp 8844–8856.

    Not in our library

  163. 163.

    Meier J.; Rao R.; Verkuil R.; Liu J.; Sercu T.; Rives A. Language Models Enable Zero-Shot Prediction of the Effects of Mutations on Protein Function. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems; Ranzato M., Beygelzimer A., Dauphin Y., Liang P. S., Vaughan J. W., Eds.; Curran Associates, Inc., 2021; Vol. 34, pp 29287–29303.

    Not in our library

  164. 164.

    Alley E. C.; Khimulya G.; Biswas S.; AlQuraishi M.; Church G. M. Unified Rational Protein Engineering with Sequence-Based Deep Representation Learning. Nat. Methods 2019, 16 (12), 1315–1322..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-019-0598-1 (opens in a new tab)

  165. 165.

    Rao R.; Bhattacharya N.; Thomas N.; Duan Y.; Chen X.; Canny J.; Abbeel P.; Song Y. S. Evaluating Protein Transfer Learning with TAPE. 2019.

    Not in our library

  166. 166.

    Rives A.; Meier J.; Sercu T.; Goyal S.; Lin Z.; Liu J.; Guo D.; Ott M.; Zitnick C. L.; Ma J.; Fergus R. Biological Structure and Function Emerge from Scaling Unsupervised Learning to 250 Million Protein Sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2021, 118 (15), e2016239118.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2016239118 (opens in a new tab)

  167. 167.

    Yang K. K.; Fusi N.; Lu A. X. Convolutions Are Competitive with Transformers for Protein Sequence Pretraining. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.05.19.492714 (opens in a new tab)

  168. 168.
    ProteinBERT: a universal deep-learning model of protein sequence and function · 2022
    No notice
  169. 169.

    Elnaggar A.; Heinzinger M.; Dallago C.; Rehawi G.; Wang Y.; Jones L.; Gibbs T.; Feher T.; Angerer C.; Steinegger M.; Bhowmik D.; Rost B. ProtTrans: Toward Understanding the Language of Life Through Self-Supervised Learning. IEEE Trans. Pattern Anal. Mach. Intell. 2022, 44 (10), 7112–7127..

    Not in our library10.1109/tpami.2021.3095381 (opens in a new tab)

  170. 170.

    Hesslow D.; Zanichelli N.; Notin P.; Poli I.; Marks D. RITA: A Study on Scaling Up Generative Protein Sequence Models. arXiv May 11, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2205.05789.

    Not in our library

  171. 171.

    Dunham A. S.; Beltrao P.; AlQuraishi M. High-Throughput Deep Learning Variant Effect Prediction with Sequence UNET. Genome Biol. 2023, 24 (1), 110.

    Not in our library10.1186/s13059-023-02948-3 (opens in a new tab)

  172. 172.

    Yang K. K.; Yeh H.; Zanichelli N. Masked Inverse Folding with Sequence Transfer for Protein Representation Learning. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.05.25.493516 (opens in a new tab)

  173. 173.

    Hsu C.; Verkuil R.; Liu J.; Lin Z.; Hie B.; Sercu T.; Lerer A.; Rives A. Learning Inverse Folding from Millions of Predicted Structures. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning; Chaudhuri K., Jegelka S., Song L., Szepesvari C., Niu G., Sabato S., Eds.; Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; PMLR, 2022; Vol. 162, pp 8946–8970.

    Not in our library

  174. 174.

    Cheng J.; Novati G.; Pan J.; Bycroft C.; Žemgulytė A.; Applebaum T.; Pritzel A.; Wong L. H.; Zielinski M.; Sargeant T.; Schneider R. G.; Senior A. W.; Jumper J.; Hassabis D.; Kohli P.; Avsec Ž. Accurate Proteome-Wide Missense Variant Effect Prediction with AlphaMissense. Science 2023, 381 (6664), eadg7492.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.adg7492 (opens in a new tab)

  175. 175.

    Shaw A.; Spinner H.; Shin J.; Gurev S.; Rollins N.; Marks D. Removing Bias in Sequence Models of Protein Fitness.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.09.28.560044 (opens in a new tab)

  176. 176.
    How Protein Stability and New Functions Trade Off · 2008
    No notice
  177. 177.
    Mega-scale experimental analysis of protein folding stability in biology and design · 2023
    No notice
  178. 178.

    Taverna D. M.; Goldstein R. A. Why Are Proteins Marginally Stable?. Proteins Struct. Funct. Genet. 2002, 46 (1), 105–109..

    Not in our library10.1002/prot.10016 (opens in a new tab)

  179. 179.

    Nisthal A.; Wang C. Y.; Ary M. L.; Mayo S. L. Protein Stability Engineering Insights Revealed by Domain-Wide Comprehensive Mutagenesis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2019, 116 (33), 16367–16377..

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1903888116 (opens in a new tab)

  180. 180.
    Learning meaningful representations of protein sequences · 2022
    No notice
  181. 181.

    Dallago C.; Mou J.; Johnston K. E.; Wittmann B. J.; Bhattacharya N.; Goldman S.; Madani A.; Yang K. K. FLIP: Benchmark Tasks in Fitness Landscape Inference for Proteins. bioRxiv; preprint, 2021.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.11.09.467890 (opens in a new tab)

  182. 182.

    Georgiev A. G. Interpretable Numerical Descriptors of Amino Acid Space. J. Comput. Biol. 2009, 16 (5), 703–723..

    Not in our library10.1089/cmb.2008.0173 (opens in a new tab)

  183. 183.

    Michael R.; Kæstel-Hansen J.; Groth P. M.; Bartels S.; Salomon J.; Tian P.; Hatzakis N. S.; Boomsma W. Assessing the Performance of Protein Regression Models. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.06.18.545472 (opens in a new tab)

  184. 184.
    Fine-tuning protein language models boosts predictions across diverse tasks · 2024
    No notice
  185. 185.

    Bepler T.; Berger B. Learning Protein Sequence Embeddings Using Information from Structure. 2019.

    Not in our library

  186. 186.
    Neural networks to learn protein sequence–function relationships from deep mutational scanning data · 2021
    No notice
  187. 187.

    Tian X.; Wang Z.; Yang K. K.; Su J.; Du H.; Zheng Q.; Guo G.; Yang M.; Yang F.; Yuan F. Sequence vs. Structure: Delving Deep into Data-Driven Protein Function Prediction. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.04.02.534383 (opens in a new tab)

  188. 188.

    Qabel A.; Ennadir S.; Nikolentzos G.; Lutzeyer J. F.; Chatzianastasis M.; Bostrom H.; Vazirgiannis M. Advancing Antibiotic Resistance Classification with Deep Learning Using Protein Sequence and Structure. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.10.06.511103 (opens in a new tab)

  189. 189.

    Jamasb A. R.; Viñas R.; Ma E. J.; Harris C.; Huang K.; Hall D.; Lió P.; Blundell T. L. Graphein—A Python Library for Geometric Deep Learning and Network Analysis on Protein Structures and Interaction Networks.bioRxiv; preprint, 2020.

    Not in our library10.1101/2020.07.15.204701 (opens in a new tab)

  190. 190.

    Qiu Y.; Wei G.-W. Persistent Spectral Theory-Guided Protein Engineering. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2023, 3, 149–163..

    Not in our library10.1038/s43588-022-00394-y (opens in a new tab)

  191. 191.

    Wirnsberger G.; Pritisanac I.; Oberdorfer G.; Gruber K. Flattening the Curve—How to Get Better Results with Small Deep-Mutational-Scanning Datasets. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.03.27.534314 (opens in a new tab)

  192. 192.

    Robinson L. C. B.; Atkinson T.; Copoiu L.; Bordes P.; Pierrot T.; Barrett T. Contrasting Sequence with Structure: Pre-Training Graph Representations with PLMs. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.12.01.569611 (opens in a new tab)

  193. 193.

    Zhong E. D.; Bepler T.; Berger B.; Davis J. H. CryoDRGN: Reconstruction of Heterogeneous Cryo-EM Structures Using Neural Networks. Nat. Methods 2021, 18 (2), 176–185..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-020-01049-4 (opens in a new tab)

  194. 194.

    Acevedo-Rocha C. G.; Li A.; D’Amore L.; Hoebenreich S.; Sanchis J.; Lubrano P.; Ferla M. P.; Garcia-Borràs M.; Osuna S.; Reetz M. T. Pervasive Cooperative Mutational Effects on Multiple Catalytic Enzyme Traits Emerge via Long-Range Conformational Dynamics. Nat. Commun.2021, 12 ( (1621), ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-021-21833-w (opens in a new tab)

  195. 195.

    Adcock S. A.; McCammon J. A. Molecular Dynamics: Survey of Methods for Simulating the Activity of Proteins. Chem. Rev. 2006, 106 (5), 1589–1615..

    Not in our library10.1021/cr040426m (opens in a new tab)

  196. 196.

    Bhabha G.; Biel J. T.; Fraser J. S. Keep on Moving: Discovering and Perturbing the Conformational Dynamics of Enzymes. Acc. Chem. Res. 2015, 48 (2), 423–430..

    Not in our library10.1021/ar5003158 (opens in a new tab)

  197. 197.

    Zhu J.; Wang J.; Han W.; Xu D. Neural Relational Inference to Learn Long-Range Allosteric Interactions in Proteins from Molecular Dynamics Simulations. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13 (1), 1661.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-022-29331-3 (opens in a new tab)

  198. 198.

    Babbitt G. A.; Rajendran M.; Lynch M. L.; Asare-Bediako R.; Mouli L. T.; Ryan C. J.; Srivastava H.; Phadke K.; Reed M. L.; Moore N.; Ferran M. C.; Fokoue E. P. ATOMDANCE: Machine Learning Denoising and Resonance Analysis for Functional and Evolutionary Comparisons of Protein Dynamics. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.04.20.537698 (opens in a new tab)

  199. 199.

    Matthews D. M.; Spence M. A.; Mater A. C.; Nichols J.; Pulsford S. B.; Sandhu M.; Kaczmarski J. A. B.; Miton C. M.; Tokuriki N.; Jackson C. J. Leveraging Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction for Protein Representation Learning. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.12.20.572683 (opens in a new tab)

  200. 200.

    Clements H. D.; Flynn A. R.; Nicholls B. T.; Grosheva D.; Lefave S. J.; Merriman M. T.; Hyster T. K.; Sigman M. S. Using Data Science for Mechanistic Insights and Selectivity Predictions in a Non-Natural Biocatalytic Reaction. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 2023, 145 (32), 17656–17664..

    Not in our library10.1021/jacs.3c03639 (opens in a new tab)

  201. 201.

    Zaugg J.; Gumulya Y.; Malde A. K.; Bodén M. Learning Epistatic Interactions from Sequence-Activity Data to Predict Enantioselectivity. J. Comput. Aided Mol. Des. 2017, 31 (12), 1085–1096..

    Not in our library10.1007/s10822-017-0090-x (opens in a new tab)

  202. 202.

    Zhang F.; Zeng T.; Wu R. QM/MM Modeling Aided Enzyme Engineering in Natural Products Biosynthesis. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2023, 63, 5018.

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jcim.3c00779 (opens in a new tab)

  203. 203.

    Goldman S.; Das R.; Yang K. K.; Coley C. W. Machine Learning Modeling of Family Wide Enzyme-Substrate Specificity Screens. PLOS Comput. Biol. 2022, 18 (2), e1009853.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1009853 (opens in a new tab)

  204. 204.

    Xu Z.; Wu J.; Song Y. S.; Mahadevan R. Enzyme Activity Prediction of Sequence Variants on Novel Substrates Using Improved Substrate Encodings and Convolutional Pooling. In Proceedings of the 16th Machine Learning in Computational Biology meeting; Knowles D. A., Mostafavi S., Lee S.-I., Eds.; Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; PMLR, 2022; Vol. 165, pp 78–87.

    Not in our library

  205. 205.

    Corso G.; Stärk H.; Jing B.; Barzilay R.; Jaakkola T. DiffDock: Diffusion Steps, Twists, and Turns for Molecular Docking. arXiv October 4, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2210.01776.

    Not in our library

  206. 206.

    Qiao Z.; Nie W.; Vahdat A.; Miller T. F. III; Anandkumar A. State-Specific Protein-Ligand Complex Structure Prediction with a Multi-Scale Deep Generative Model. arXiv April 19, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2209.15171.

    Not in our library

  207. 207.

    Yang T.; Ye Z.; Lynch M. D. Multiagent” Screening Improves Directed Enzyme Evolution by Identifying Epistatic Mutations. ACS Synth. Biol. 2022, 11 (5), 1971–1983..

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.2c00136 (opens in a new tab)

  208. 208.

    Hie B.; Bryson B. D.; Berger B. Leveraging Uncertainty in Machine Learning Accelerates Biological Discovery and Design. Cell Syst. 2020, 11 (5), 461–477..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2020.09.007 (opens in a new tab)

  209. 209.

    Greenman K. P.; Amini A. P.; Yang K. K. Benchmarking Uncertainty Quantification for Protein Engineering. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.04.17.536962 (opens in a new tab)

  210. 210.

    Qiu Y.; Hu J.; Wei G.-W. Cluster Learning-Assisted Directed Evolution. Nat. Comput. Sci. 2021, 1 (12), 809–818..

    Not in our library10.1038/s43588-021-00168-y (opens in a new tab)

  211. 211.

    Qiu Y.; Wei G.-W. CLADE 2.0: Evolution-Driven Cluster Learning-Assisted Directed Evolution. J. Chem. Inf. Model. 2022, 62 (19), 4629–4641..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jcim.2c01046 (opens in a new tab)

  212. 212.

    Stanton S.; Maddox W.; Gruver N.; Maffettone P.; Delaney E.; Greenside P.; Wilson A. G. Accelerating Bayesian Optimization for Biological Sequence Design with Denoising Autoencoders. arXiv July 12, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2203.12742.

    Not in our library

  213. 213.

    Gruver N.; Stanton S.; Kirichenko P.; Finzi M.; Maffettone P.; Myers V.; Delaney E.; Greenside P.; Wilson A. G. Effective Surrogate Models for Protein Design with Bayesian Optimization. ICML Workshop on Computational Biology2021.

    Not in our library

  214. 214.

    Hu R.; Fu L.; Chen Y.; Chen J.; Qiao Y.; Si T. Protein Engineering via Bayesian Optimization-Guided Evolutionary Algorithm and Robotic Experiments. Brief. Bioinform. 2023, 24 (1), bbac570.

    Not in our library10.1093/bib/bbac570 (opens in a new tab)

  215. 215.

    Sinai S.; Wang R.; Whatley A.; Slocum S.; Locane E.; Kelsic E. D. AdaLead: A Simple and Robust Adaptive Greedy Search Algorithm for Sequence Design. ArXiv201002141 Cs Math Q-Bio2020.

    Not in our library

  216. 216.

    Brookes D.; Park H.; Listgarten J. Conditioning by Adaptive Sampling for Robust Design. In Proceedings of the 36th International Conference on Machine Learning; Chaudhuri K., Salakhutdinov R., Eds.; Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; PMLR, 2019; Vol. 97, pp 773–782.

    Not in our library

  217. 217.

    Brookes D. H.; Listgarten J. Design by Adaptive Sampling. arXiv February 10, 2020. http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.03714.

    Not in our library

  218. 218.

    Kirjner A.; Yim J.; Samusevich R.; Jaakkola T.; Barzilay R.; Fiete I. Optimizing Protein Fitness Using Gibbs Sampling with Graph-Based Smoothing. arXiv July 2, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2307.00494.

    Not in our library

  219. 219.

    Minot M.; Reddy S. T. Meta Learning Improves Robustness and Performance in Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.01.30.526201 (opens in a new tab)

  220. 220.

    Daulton S.; Balandat M.; Bakshy E. Parallel Bayesian Optimization of Multiple Noisy Objectives with Expected Hypervolume Improvement. arXiv October 26, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2105.08195.

    Not in our library

  221. 221.

    Amin A. N.; Weinstein E. N.; Marks D. S. Biological Sequence Kernels with Guaranteed Flexibility. arXiv April 6, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2304.03775.

    Not in our library

  222. 222.

    Gligorijević V.; Berenberg D.; Ra S.; Watkins A.; Kelow S.; Cho K.; Bonneau R. Function-Guided Protein Design by Deep Manifold Sampling.bioRxiv; preprint, 2021.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.12.22.473759 (opens in a new tab)

  223. 223.

    Aghazadeh A.; Nisonoff H.; Ocal O.; Brookes D. H.; Huang Y.; Koyluoglu O. O.; Listgarten J.; Ramchandran K. Epistatic Net Allows the Sparse Spectral Regularization of Deep Neural Networks for Inferring Fitness Functions. Nat. Commun. 2021, 12 (1), 5225.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-021-25371-3 (opens in a new tab)

  224. 224.

    Brookes D. H.; Aghazadeh A.; Listgarten J. On the Sparsity of Fitness Functions and Implications for Learning. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2022, 119 (1), e2109649118.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2109649118 (opens in a new tab)

  225. 225.

    Nisonoff H.; Wang Y.; Listgarten J. Augmenting Neural Networks with Priors on Function Values. arXiv October 14, 2022. http://arxiv.org/abs/2202.04798.

    Not in our library

  226. 226.

    Ding D. Independent Mutation Effects Enable Design of Combinatorial Protein Binding Mutants.bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.10.31.514613 (opens in a new tab)

  227. 227.

    Ding D.; Shaw A.; Sinai S.; Rollins N.; Prywes N.; Savage D. F.; Laub M. T.; Marks D. S. Protein Design Using Structure-Based Residue Preferences. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.10.31.514613 (opens in a new tab)

  228. 228.

    Cocco S.; Monasson R.; Posani L. Minimal Epistatic Networks from Integrated Sequence and Mutational Protein Data. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.09.25.559251 (opens in a new tab)

  229. 229.

    Nisonoff H.; Wang Y.; Listgarten J. Coherent Blending of Biophysics-Based Knowledge with Bayesian Neural Networks for Robust Protein Property Prediction. ACS Synth. Biol. 2023, 12, 3242.

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.3c00217 (opens in a new tab)

  230. 230.

    Ren Z.; Li J.; Ding F.; Zhou Y.; Ma J.; Peng J. Proximal Exploration for Model-Guided Protein Sequence Design. In Proceedings of the 39th International Conference on Machine Learning; Chaudhuri K., Jegelka S., Song L., Szepesvari C., Niu G., Sabato S., Eds.; Proceedings of Machine Learning Research; PMLR, 2022; Vol. 162, pp 18520–18536.

    Not in our library

  231. 231.

    Outeiral C.; Deane C. M. Codon Language Embeddings Provide Strong Signals for Protein Engineering. bioRxiv; preprint, 2022.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.12.15.519894 (opens in a new tab)

  232. 232.

    Minot M.; Reddy S. T. Nucleotide Augmentation for Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering. Bioinforma. Adv. 2023, 3 (1), vbac094.

    Not in our library10.1093/bioadv/vbac094 (opens in a new tab)

  233. 233.

    Fannjiang C.; Bates S.; Angelopoulos A. N.; Listgarten J.; Jordan M. I. Conformal Prediction under Feedback Covariate Shift for Biomolecular Design. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 2022, 119 (43), e2204569119.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2204569119 (opens in a new tab)

  234. 234.

    Fannjiang C.; Listgarten J. Is Novelty Predictable?. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2023, a041469.

    Not in our library10.1101/cshperspect.a041469 (opens in a new tab)

  235. 235.

    Fahlberg S. A.; Freschlin C. R.; Heinzelman P.; Romero P. A. Neural Network Extrapolation to Distant Regions of the Protein Fitness Landscape. bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.11.08.566287 (opens in a new tab)

  236. 236.

    Wilson A. G.; Hu Z.; Salakhutdinov R.; Xing E. P. Deep Kernel Learning. arXiv November 6, 2015. http://arxiv.org/abs/1511.02222.

    Not in our library

  237. 237.

    Ober S. W.; Rasmussen C. E.; van der Wilk M. The Promises and Pitfalls of Deep Kernel Learning. arXiv July 7, 2021. http://arxiv.org/abs/2102.12108.

    Not in our library

  238. 238.

    Chory E. J.; Gretton D. W.; DeBenedictis E. A.; Esvelt K. M. Enabling High-throughput Biology with Flexible Open-source Automation. Mol. Syst. Biol. 2021, 17 (3), e9942.

    Not in our library10.15252/msb.20209942 (opens in a new tab)

  239. 239.

    DeBenedictis E. A.; Chory E. J.; Gretton D. W.; Wang B.; Golas S.; Esvelt K. M. Systematic Molecular Evolution Enables Robust Biomolecule Discovery. Nat. Methods 2022, 19 (1), 55–64..

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-021-01348-4 (opens in a new tab)

  240. 240.

    Koscher B. A.; Canty R. B.; McDonald M. A.; Greenman K. P.; McGill C. J.; Bilodeau C. L.; Jin W.; Wu H.; Vermeire F. H.; Jin B.; Hart T.; Kulesza T.; Li S.-C.; Jaakkola T. S.; Barzilay R.; Gómez-Bombarelli R.; Green W. H.; Jensen K. F. Autonomous, Multiproperty-Driven Molecular Discovery: From Predictions to Measurements and Back. Science 2023, 382 (6677), eadi1407.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.adi1407 (opens in a new tab)

  241. 241.
    Autonomous chemical research with large language models · 2023
    No notice
  242. 242.

    Yu T.; Boob A. G.; Singh N.; Su Y.; Zhao H. In Vitro Continuous Protein Evolution Empowered by Machine Learning and Automation. Cell Syst. 2023, 14 (8), 633–644..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2023.04.006 (opens in a new tab)

  243. 243.

    Mahjour B.; Hoffstadt J.; Cernak T. Designing Chemical Reaction Arrays Using Phactor and ChatGPT. Org. Process Res. Dev. 2023, 27 (8), 1510–1516..

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.oprd.3c00186 (opens in a new tab)

  244. 244.

    Mahjour B.; Zhang R.; Shen Y.; McGrath A.; Zhao R.; Mohamed O. G.; Lin Y.; Zhang Z.; Douthwaite J. L.; Tripathi A.; Cernak T. Rapid Planning and Analysis of High-Throughput Experiment Arrays for Reaction Discovery. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14 (1), 3924.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41467-023-39531-0 (opens in a new tab)

  245. 245.

    Yang J.; Ducharme J.; Johnston K. E.; Li F.-Z.; Yue Y.; Arnold F. H. DeCOIL: Optimization of Degenerate Codon Libraries for Machine Learning-Assisted Protein Engineering. ACS Synth. Biol. 2023, 12, 2444.

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.3c00301 (opens in a new tab)

  246. 246.

    Wittmann B. J.; Johnston K. E.; Almhjell P. J.; Arnold F. H. evSeq: Cost-Effective Amplicon Sequencing of Every Variant in a Protein Library. ACS Synth. Biol. 2022, 11 (3), 1313–1324..

    Not in our library10.1021/acssynbio.1c00592 (opens in a new tab)

  247. 247.

    Zhu D.; Brookes D. H.; Busia A.; Carneiro A.; Fannjiang C.; Popova G.; Shin D.; Donohue K. C.; Lin L. F.; Miller Z. M.; Williams E. R.; Chang E. F.; Nowakowski T. J.; Listgarten J.; Schaffer D. V. Optimal Trade-off Control in Machine Learning-Based Library Design, with Application to Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) for Gene Therapy. Sci. Adv.2024, 10 (4),, In Press.

    Not in our library10.1126/sciadv.adj3786 (opens in a new tab)

  248. 248.

    Patsch D.; Eichenberger M.; Voss M.; Bornscheuer U. T.; Buller R. M. LibGENiE – A Bioinformatic Pipeline for the Design of Information-Enriched Enzyme Libraries. Comput. Struct. Biotechnol. J. 2023, 21, 4488–4496..

    Not in our library10.1016/j.csbj.2023.09.013 (opens in a new tab)

  249. 249.

    Martinez Z. A.; Murray R. M.; Thomson M. W. TRILL: Orchestrating Modular Deep-Learning Workflows for Democratized, Scalable Protein Analysis and Engineering.bioRxiv; preprint, 2023.

    Not in our library10.1101/2023.10.24.563881 (opens in a new tab)

Questions about this paper

We email you if it is retracted, withdrawn, corrected or flagged.

Reads

Read by people on this page

None yet.

Checked or read by AI through naulon

None yet.

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.

Are you an author?

Is this your paper?

Claim it to add your note and be paid when agents cite it. Free.