Design of protein-binding proteins from the target structure alone

Abstract

The design of proteins that bind to a specific site on the surface of a target protein using no information other than the three-dimensional structure of the target remains a challenge 1–5 . Here we describe a general solution to this problem that starts with a broad exploration of the vast space of possible binding modes to a selected region of a protein surface, and then intensifies the search in the vicinity of the most promising binding modes. We demonstrate the broad applicability of this approach through the de novo design of binding proteins to 12 diverse protein targets with different shapes and surface properties. Biophysical characterization shows that the binders, which are all smaller than 65 amino acids, are hyperstable and, following experimental optimization, bind their targets with nanomolar to picomolar affinities. We succeeded in solving crystal structures of five of the binder–target complexes, and all five closely match the corresponding computational design models. Experimental data on nearly half a million computational designs and hundreds of thousands of point mutants provide detailed feedback on the strengths and limitations of the method and of our current understanding of protein–protein interactions, and should guide improvements of both. Our approach enables the targeted design of binders to sites of interest on a wide variety of proteins for therapeutic and diagnostic applications.

Shown for reading. Its publisher allows quoting it, not republishing it.

References 89

1. 1.

   Chevalier A, et al. Massively parallel de novo protein design for targeted therapeutics. Nature. 2017;550:74-79.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature23912

2. 2.

   Strauch EM, et al. Computational design of trimeric influenza-neutralizing proteins targeting the hemagglutinin receptor binding site. Nat. Biotechnol. 2017;35:667-671.

   Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3907

3. 3.

   Silva DA, et al. De novo design of potent and selective mimics of IL-2 and IL-15. Nature. 2019;565:186-191.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0830-7

4. 4.

   Baran D, et al. Principles for computational design of binding antibodies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2017;114:10900-10905.

   Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1707171114

5. 5.

   Fleishman SJ, et al. Computational design of proteins targeting the conserved stem region of influenza hemagglutinin. Science. 2011;332:816-821.

   Not in our library10.1126/science.1202617

6. 6.

   Dou J, et al. De novo design of a fluorescence-activating β-barrel. Nature. 2018;561:485-491.

   Not in our library10.1038/s41586-018-0509-0

7. 7.

   Koga N, et al. Principles for designing ideal protein structures. Nature. 2012;491:222-227.

   Not in our library10.1038/nature11600

8. 8.

   Linsky, T. et al. Sampling of structure and sequence space of small protein folds. Preprint at bioRxiv10.1101/2021.03.10.434454 (2021).

   Not in our library

9. 9.

   Maguire JB, et al. Perturbing the energy landscape for improved packing during computational protein design. Proteins. 2021;89:436-449.

   Not in our library10.1002/prot.26030

10. 10.

    Rocklin GJ, et al. Global analysis of protein folding using massively parallel design, synthesis, and testing. Science. 2017;357:168-175.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aan0693

11. 11.

    Schneidman-Duhovny D, Inbar Y, Nussinov R, Wolfson HJ. PatchDock and SymmDock: servers for rigid and symmetric docking. Nucleic Acids Res. 2005;33:W363-W367.

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gki481

12. 12.

    Brunette TJ, et al. Modular repeat protein sculpting using rigid helical junctions. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2020;117:8870-8875.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1908768117

13. 13.

    Coventry B, Baker D. Protein sequence optimization with a pairwise decomposable penalty for buried unsatisfied hydrogen bonds. PLoS Comp. Biol. 2021;17:e1008061.

    Not in our library10.1371/journal.pcbi.1008061

14. 14.

    Mackenzie CO, Zhou J, Grigoryan G. Tertiary alphabet for the observable protein structural universe. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2016;113:E7438-E7447.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1607178113

15. 15.

    Wiesmann C, Ultsch MH, Bass SH, de Vos AM. Crystal structure of nerve growth factor in complex with the ligand-binding domain of the TrkA receptor. Nature. 1999;401:184-188.

    Not in our library10.1038/43705

16. 16.

    Plotnikov AN, Hubbard SR, Schlessinger J, Mohammadi M. Crystal structures of two FGF–FGFR complexes reveal the determinants of ligand-receptor specificity. Cell. 2000;101:413-424.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(00)80851-x

17. 17.

    Garrett TP, et al. Crystal structure of a truncated epidermal growth factor receptor extracellular domain bound to transforming growth factor α. Cell. 2002;110:763-773.

    Not in our library10.1016/s0092-8674(02)00940-6

18. 18.

    Shim AH, et al. Structures of a platelet-derived growth factor/propeptide complex and a platelet-derived growth factor/receptor complex. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2010;107:11307-11312.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1000806107

19. 19.

    Croll TI, et al. Higher-resolution structure of the human insulin receptor ectodomain: multi-modal inclusion of the insert domain. Structure. 2016;24:469-476.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2015.12.014

20. 20.
    How ligand binds to the type 1 insulin-like growth factor receptor · 2018

    No notice
21. 21.

    Barton WA, et al. Crystal structures of the Tie2 receptor ectodomain and the angiopoietin-2–Tie2 complex. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 2006;13:524-532.

    Not in our library10.1038/nsmb1101

22. 22.

    McElroy CA, Dohm JA, Walsh ST. Structural and biophysical studies of the human IL-7/IL-7Rα complex. Structure. 2009;17:54-65.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2008.10.019

23. 23.

    Arnett KL, Harrison SC, Wiley DC. Crystal structure of a human CD3-ε/δ dimer in complex with a UCHT1 single-chain antibody fragment. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA. 2004;101:16268-16273.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0407359101

24. 24.

    Radaev S, et al. Ternary complex of transforming growth factor-β1 reveals isoform-specific ligand recognition and receptor recruitment in the superfamily. J. Biol. Chem. 2010;285:14806-14814.

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.m109.079921

25. 25.

    Ekiert DC, et al. Cross-neutralization of influenza A viruses mediated by a single antibody loop. Nature. 2012;489:526-532.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature11414

26. 26.

    Gillespie JJ, et al. Structural insight into how bacteria prevent interference between multiple divergent type IV secretion systems. mBio. 2015;6:e01867-15.

    Not in our library10.1128/mbio.01867-15

27. 27.

    Birtalan S, et al. The intrinsic contributions of tyrosine, serine, glycine and arginine to the affinity and specificity of antibodies. J. Mol. Biol. 2008;377:1518-1528.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.jmb.2008.01.093

28. 28.

    Lemmon MA, Schlessinger J. Cell signaling by receptor tyrosine kinases. Cell. 2010;141:1117-1134.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2010.06.011

29. 29.

    Markovic I, Savvides SN. Modulation of signaling mediated by TSLP and IL-7 in inflammation, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. Front. Immunol. 2020;11:1557.

    Not in our library10.3389/fimmu.2020.01557

30. 30.

    Webster RG, Bean WJ, Gorman OT, Chambers TM, Kawaoka Y. Evolution and ecology of influenza A viruses. Microbiol. Rev. 1992;56:152-179.

    Not in our library10.1128/mr.56.1.152-179.1992

31. 31.

    Nobusawa E, et al. Comparison of complete amino acid sequences and receptor-binding properties among 13 serotypes of hemagglutinins of influenza A viruses. Virology. 1991;182:475-485.

    Not in our library10.1016/0042-6822(91)90588-3

32. 32.

    Bullough PA, Hughson FM, Skehel JJ, Wiley DC. Structure of influenza haemagglutinin at the pH of membrane fusion. Nature. 1994;371:37-43.

    Not in our library10.1038/371037a0

33. 33.

    Ekiert DC, et al. Antibody recognition of a highly conserved influenza virus epitope. Science. 2009;324:246-251.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1171491

34. 34.

    Corti D, et al. A neutralizing antibody selected from plasma cells that binds to group 1 and group 2 influenza A hemagglutinins. Science. 2011;333:850-856.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1205669

35. 35.

    Joyce MG, et al. Vaccine-induced antibodies that neutralize group 1 and group 2 influenza A viruses. Cell. 2016;166:609-623.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2016.06.043

36. 36.

    Kadam RU, et al. Potent peptidic fusion inhibitors of influenza virus. Science. 2017;358:496-502.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aan0516

37. 37.

    van Dongen MJP, et al. A small-molecule fusion inhibitor of influenza virus is orally active in mice. Science. 2019;363:eaar6221.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aar6221

38. 38.
    De novo design of picomolar SARS-CoV-2 miniprotein inhibitors · 2020

    No notice
39. 39.

    Case JB, et al. Ultrapotent miniproteins targeting the SARS-CoV-2 receptor-binding domain protect against infection and disease. Cell Host Microbe. 2021;29:1151-1161.

    Not in our library10.1016/j.chom.2021.06.008

40. 40.

    Quijano-Rubio A, et al. De novo design of modular and tunable protein biosensors. Nature. 2021;591:482-487.

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-021-03258-z

Cited by papers we hold 16

• Advance in peptide-based drug development: delivery platforms, therapeutics and vaccines · 2025
  No notice
• De novo designed proteins neutralize lethal snake venom toxins · 2025
  No notice
• Atomic context-conditioned protein sequence design using LigandMPNN · 2025
  No notice
• Atomically accurate de novo design of antibodies with RFdiffusion · 2025
  No notice
• Protein language models learn evolutionary statistics of interacting sequence motifs · 2024
  No notice
• Designed endocytosis-inducing proteins degrade targets and amplify signals · 2024
  No notice
• The JAK-STAT pathway: from structural biology to cytokine engineering · 2024
  Corrected
• Improving de novo protein binder design with deep learning · 2023
  No notice
• De novo design of protein interactions with learned surface fingerprints · 2023
  No notice
• De novo design of high-affinity binders of bioactive helical peptides · 2023
  No notice
• De novo design of luciferases using deep learning · 2023
  No notice
• Engineering protein-based therapeutics through structural and chemical design · 2023
  No notice
• De novo design of protein structure and function with RFdiffusion · 2023
  No notice
• Illuminating protein space with a programmable generative model · 2023
  No notice
• Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN · 2022
  No notice
• Scaffolding protein functional sites using deep learning · 2022
  No notice

Reads

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.