Skip to content
naulon

No retraction, correction or concern found when last checked on Oct 17, 2026.

Scaffolding protein functional sites using deep learning

Jue Wang, Sidney Lisanza, David Juergens and 21 more

Science · 2022

doi:10.1101/2021.11.10.468128

Abstract

The binding and catalytic functions of proteins are generally mediated by a small number of functional residues held in place by the overall protein structure. Here, we describe deep learning approaches for scaffolding such functional sites without needing to prespecify the fold or secondary structure of the scaffold. The first approach, “constrained hallucination,” optimizes sequences such that their predicted structures contain the desired functional site. The second approach, “inpainting,” starts from the functional site and fills in additional sequence and structure to create a viable protein scaffold in a single forward pass through a specifically trained RoseTTAFold network. We use these two methods to design candidate immunogens, receptor traps, metalloproteins, enzymes, and protein-binding proteins and validate the designs using a combination of in silico and experimental tests.

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

Full text

From PubMed Central, U.S. National Library of Medicine, as current on Oct 17, 2026. Paragraph numbers are ours, so an answer can point at one.

The biochemical functions of proteins are often carried out by a subset of residues which constitute a functional site--for example, an enzyme active site or a protein or small molecule binding site--and hence the design of proteins with new functions can be divided into two steps. The first step is to identify functional site geometries and amino acid identities which produce the desired activity--for enzymes this can be done using quantum chemistry calculations and for protein binders by fragment docking calculations; alternatively, functional sites can be extracted from a native protein having the desired activity. In this paper, we focus on the second step: given a functional site description from any source, design an amino acid sequence which folds up to a three dimensional structure containing the site. Previous methods can scaffold functional sites made up of one or two contiguous chain segments, but with the exception of helical bundles these do not extend readily to more complex sites composed of three or more chain segments, and the generated backbones are not guaranteed to be designable (encodable by some amino acid sequence).

An ideal method for functional de novo protein design would 1) embed the functional site with minimal distortion in a designable scaffold protein; 2) be applicable to arbitrary site geometries, searching over all possible scaffold topologies and secondary structure compositions for those optimal for harboring the specified site, and 3) jointly generate backbone structure and amino acid sequence. We previously demonstrated that the trRosetta structure-prediction neural network can be used to generate new proteins by maximizing the trRosetta output probability that a sequence folds to some (unspecified) three dimensional structure during Monte Carlo sampling in sequence space. We refer to this process as “hallucination” as it produces solutions that the network considers ideal proteins but do not correspond to any known natural protein; crystal and NMR structures confirm that the hallucinated sequences fold to the hallucinated structures. trRosetta can also be used to design sequences that fold into a target backbone structure by carrying out sequence optimization using a structure recapitulation loss function that rewards similarity of the predicted structure to the target structure. Given this ability to design both sequence and structure, we reasoned that trRosetta could be adapted to tackle the functional site scaffolding problem.

Partially constrained hallucination using a multi-objective loss function

To extend existing trRosetta-based design methods to scaffold functional sites (Fig. 1A), we optimized amino acid sequences for folding to a structure containing the desired functional site using a composite loss function that combines the previously used hallucination loss with a motif reconstruction loss over the functional motif (rather than the entire structure as in (Fig. 1B; Methods). While we succeeded in generating structures with segments closely recapitulating functional sites, Rosetta structure predictions suggested that the sequences poorly encoded the structures (Fig. S1A), and hence we used Rosetta design calculations to generate more-optimal sequences. Several designs targeting PD-L1 generated by constrained hallucination with binding motifs derived from PD-1 (Table S1), followed by Rosetta design, were found to have binding affinities in the mid-nanomolar range (Fig. S1B–E). While this experimental validation is encouraging, the requirement for sequence design using Rosetta is inconsistent with the aim of jointly designing sequence and structure.

Following the development of RosettaFold (RF) we found that it performed better than trRosetta in guiding protein design by functional-site-constrained hallucination (Fig. S1G), likely reflecting the better overall modeling of protein sequence-structure relationships. Constrained hallucination with RosettaFold has the further advantages that because 3D coordinates are explicitly modeled (trRosetta only generates residue-residue distances and orientations), site recapitulation can be assessed at the coordinate level, and additional problem-specific loss terms can be implemented in coordinate space that assess interactions with a target (Fig. S2; Materials and Methods).

Generalized functional motif scaffolding by missing information recovery

While powerful and general, the constrained hallucination approach is compute-intensive, as a forward and backward pass through the network is required for each gradient descent step during sequence optimization. In the training of recent versions of RosettaFold, a subset of positions in the input multiple sequence alignment (MSA) are masked and the network is trained to recover this missing sequence information in addition to predicting structure. This ability to recover both sequence and structural information provides a second solution to the functional site scaffolding problem: given a functional site description, a forward pass through the network can be used to complete, or “inpaint”, both protein sequence and structure in a missing/masked region of protein (Fig. 1C; Methods). Here, the design challenge is formulated as an information recovery problem, analogous to the completion of a sentence given its first few words using language models or completion of corrupted images using inpainting. A wide variety of protein structure prediction and design challenges can be similarly formulated as missing information recovery problems (Fig. 1D). Although protein inpainting has been explored before, here we approach it using the power of a pre-trained structure-prediction network.

We began from a RosettaFold model trained for structure prediction and carried out further training on fixed-backbone sequence design in addition to the standard fixed-sequence structure prediction task (Fig. S3; Materials and Methods). This model, denoted RFimplicit, was able to recover small, contiguous regions missing both sequence and structure (Fig. S3). Encouraged by this result, we trained a model explicitly on inpainting segments with missing sequence and structure given the surrounding protein context, in addition to sequence design and structure prediction tasks (Fig. S4A; Materials and Methods; Algorithm S1). The resulting model was able to inpaint missing regions with high fidelity (Fig. 1E, S4) and performed well at sequence design (32% native sequence recovery during training, Fig. S4C) and structure prediction (Fig. S4C). We call this network RFjoint and use it to generate all inpainted designs below except otherwise noted.

To evaluate in silico the quality of designs generated by our methods, we use the AlphaFold (AF) protein structure prediction network which has high accuracy on de novo designed proteins (Fig. S7A). RF and AF have different architectures and were trained independently, and hence AF predictions can be regarded as a partially orthogonal in silico test of whether RF-designed sequences fold into the intended structures, analogous to traditional ab initio folding. We used AF to compare the ability of hallucination and inpainting to rebuild missing protein regions (Fig. 1F–G, S5). Inpainting yielded solutions with more accurately predicted fixed regions (“AF-RMSD”; Fig. 1G, S5B) and structures overall more confidently predicted from their amino acid sequences (“AF pLDDT”, Fig. 1F, S5A), and required only 1–10 seconds per design on an NVIDIA RTX2080 GPU (hallucination requires 5–20 minutes per design). However, hallucination gave better results when the missing region was large (Fig. S5) and generated greater structural diversity (Fig. S8, see below).

In the following sections, we highlight the power of the constrained hallucination and inpainting methods by designing proteins containing a wide range of functional motifs (Fig. 2–5, Table S1). For almost all problems, we obtained designs that are closely recapitulated by AF with overall and motif (functional site) RMSD typically <2 Å and <1 Å respectively, with high model confidence (pLDDT > 80; Table S2); such recapitulation suggests the designed sequences encode the designed structures (although it should be noted that AF has limited ability to predict protein stability or mutational effects). More critically, we assessed the activities of the designs experimentally (with the exception of those labeled “in silico” in Fig. 2–5).

Designing immunogen candidates and receptor traps

The goal of immunogen design is to scaffold a native epitope recognized by a neutralizing antibody as accurately as possible, in order to elicit antibodies binding the native protein upon immunization. Additional interactions with the antibody are undesirable because the goal is to elicit antibodies recognizing only the original antigen, and hence for hallucination we add a repulsive loss term to penalize interactions with the antibody beyond those present in the scaffolded epitope (Fig. S2; Supplementary Text). As a test case, we focused on respiratory syncytial virus F protein (RSV-F), which has several antigenic epitopes for which structures with neutralizing antibodies have been determined. We scaffolded RSV-F site II, a 24-residue helix-loop-helix motif that had previously been grafted successfully onto a 3-helix bundle, as well as RSV-F site V, a 19-residue helix-loop-strand motif that has not yet been scaffolded successfully. We were able to hallucinate designs recapitulating both epitopes to sub-angstrom backbone RMSD in a variety of folds (Fig. 2A, Fig. S9; structures and sequences for all designs below are in Data S1–2 and differ considerably from native proteins (Table S2); RF and AF models are in Fig. S9, S11, S17; only the AF model is shown in the main figures). Inpainting also generated scaffolds for RSV-F site V, with comparable quality but less diversity than the hallucinations (Fig. S8).

We expressed 37 hallucinated RSV-F site V scaffolds with high AF pLDDT and low motif AF-RMSD in E. coli and found that three bound the neutralizing antibody hRSV90 with Kd’s of 0.9–1.3 uM (Fig. 2C, S11; Methods; Supplementary Text). The Kd for the RSVF trimer is lower (23nM), but the interface is larger encompassing both sites II and V. Mutation of either of two key epitope residues reduced or abolished binding of the designs, suggesting that they bind the target through the scaffolded motif (Fig. 2C, S11A), and circular dichroism spectra were consistent with the designed scaffold structures for designs (Fig. 2D) and their point mutants (Fig. S11C). Four of the inpainted designs bound hRSV90 by yeast display, but were poorly expressed in E. coli (Fig. S11C–E). Overall, the designs provide a diverse set of promising starting points for further RSV-F epitope-based vaccine development.

We next applied hallucination to the in silico design of receptor traps which neutralize viruses by mimicking their natural binding targets and thus are inherently robust against mutational escape. We again augmented the loss function with a penalty on interactions beyond those in the native receptor to avoid opportunities for viral escape. As a test case, we scaffolded the helix of human angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (hACE2) interacting with the receptor-binding domain (RBD) of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike protein. The hallucinated hACE2 mimetics have a diverse set of helical topologies, and AF2 structure predictions recapitulate the binding interface with sub-Å accuracy (Fig. 2B, S9C).

Designing metal-coordinating proteins

Di-iron sites are important in biological systems for iron storage and can mediate catalysis. We were able to recapitulate the di-iron site from E. coli bacterioferritin, composed of four parallel helical segments, to sub-angstrom AF-RMSD using both inpainting (Fig. 3A–E, S13) and hallucination (Fig. S12; the latter were not tested due to buried polar residues; Supplementary Text). The designs had diverse helix connectivities and low structural similarity to the parent (Fig. S13B, S12; TM-score 0.55–0.71 to 1BCF_A). We chose 96 inpainted designs to test experimentally, and found that 76 had soluble expression, at least 8 (Supplementary Text) had a spectroscopic shift indicative of Co2+-binding (a proxy for iron binding), and 3 (dife_inp_1–3, Fig. 3B, S13E) had CD spectra consistent with the designed fold (Fig. 3D, S13F) and were stabilized by metal binding (Fig. 3E, S13G). Mutation of the metal binding residues abolished binding (Fig. 3B, S13E), and titration analysis of dife_inp_1 suggested that both metal binding sites were successfully scaffolded (Fig. 3C).

We next scaffolded the calcium-binding EF-hand motif, a 12-residue loop flanked by helices. Both constrained hallucination and inpainting readily generated scaffolds recapitulating either 1 or 2 EF-hand motifs to within 1.0 Å AF-RMSD of the native motif (Fig. 3F, Fig S14A,B, table S2). We chose 20 hallucinations and 55 inpaints to display on yeast and screen for calcium binding using tryptophan-enhanced terbium fluorescence. 6 hallucinations and 4 inpaintings had fluorescence consistent with ion binding (Fig. S14A, Materials and Methods; one of these proteins (EFhand_inp_2) was designed using RFimplicit (Supplementary Text)). The top hit from yeast, the inpainted EFhand_inp_1, was purified from E. coli as a monomer (Fig. S14C), had the expected CD spectrum (Fig. 3G) and a clear terbium binding signal (Fig. 3H) which was eliminated by CaCl2 competition (Fig. 3H).

In silico design of enzyme active sites

We next sought to scaffold the active site of carbonic anhydrase II, which catalyzes the interconversion of carbon dioxide and bicarbonate and has recently been of interest for carbon sequestration. The active site consists of 3 Zn2+-coordinating histidines on two strands and a threonine on a loop which orients the CO2 (Table S1). Despite the complexity of the irregular, discontinuous, 3-segment site, hallucination was able to generate designs with sub-angstrom motif AF-RMSDs with correct His placement for Zn2+ coordination (Fig. 4A, S9D); these are less than 100 residues, significantly smaller than the 261 residue native protein.

We next scaffolded the catalytic sidechains of Δ5-3-ketosteroid isomerase (Table S1) involved in steroid hormone biosynthesis. We attempted to use gradient descent by backpropagation through AF (Materials and Methods; a sidechain-predicting version of RF was not available at the time) but found it difficult to obtain accurate side-chain placement; the landscape may be too rugged with the high resolution sidechain-based loss (Supplementary Text). Better results were obtained with a two-stage approach using first both AF and trRosetta (to smoothen the loss landscape) and a description of the active site at the backbone level, followed by a second all-atom AF-only stage once the overall backbone was roughly in place. This yielded multiple plausible solutions with nearly exact matches to the catalytic sidechain geometry (Fig. 4C–D, S9E). In silico validation with a held-out AF model (Materials and Methods) recapitulated the designed active sites. The use of stage-specific loss functions illustrates the ready customizability of the hallucination approach to specific design challenges without network retraining.

Designing protein-binding proteins

To design binders to the cancer checkpoint protein PD-L1, we scaffolded 2 discontiguous segments of the interfacial beta-sheet from a high-affinity mutant of PD-1 (Fig 5A; Methods). Inpainting yielded designs with not only good AF predictions of the binder monomer (AF pLDDT > 80, motif AF-RMSD < 1.4 Å) but also of the complex between the binder and PD-L1, with an inter-chain predicted alignment error (inter-PAE) of <10 Å (Materials and Methods). Unlike our initial efforts with trRosetta hallucination (Fig. S1, Supplementary Text), it was not necessary to redesign the inpainted sequences using Rosetta. Of 31 designs selected for experimental testing, one design, pdl1_inp_1, bound PD-L1 with a KD of 326 nM (Fig. 5B–C), worse than HAC PD-1 (KD = 110 pM) but better than WT PD-1 (KD = 3.9 μM). pdl1_inp_1 expressed as a monomer (Fig. S15E), was thermostable, and had a CD spectrum consistent with that of a mixed alpha-beta fold (Fig. S15F). Unlike native PD-1, which has a immunoglobulin family beta-sandwich fold, pdl1_inp_1 has 2 helices buttressing the interfacial beta sheet, as well as an additional 5th inpainted strand extending the interface (Fig. S15 A,B). The closest PDB hit had a TM-score of 0.61 and the closest BLAST NR hit had a sequence identity of 25.4%.

We next used inpainting to design ligands engaging multiple receptor binding sites. The nerve growth factor receptor TrkA dimerizes upon ligand binding, and starting from the TrkA-NGF crystal structure we positioned helical segments derived from two copies of a previously designed TrkA binding protein and used hallucination followed by inpainting (Materials and Methods) to scaffold them on a single chain (Fig. 5D–E). A design predicted to be well-structured (AF pLDDT > 80) and interact with TrkA (inter-PAE < 10 Å) was expressed, purified and bound TrkA as assessed by biolayer interferometry (BLI) (Fig. 5F). A double mutant that knocked out both designed binding sites abolished TrkA binding, while single mutants knocking out either one of the binding sites maintained partial binding (Fig. 5F; Fig. S16), suggesting that the protein binds two molecules of TrkA as designed.

RosettaFold is able to predict the structures of protein complexes, and we hypothesized that it could generate additional binding interactions between hallucinated or inpainted binder and a target beyond the scaffolded motif. We used a “two-chain” hallucination protocol (Fig. S17, Methods) to design binders to the Mdm2 oncogene by scaffolding the native N-terminal helix of the tumor suppressor protein p53 and obtained diverse designs with AF inter-PAE < 7 Å, target-aligned binder RMSD < 5 Å, binder pLDDT > 85, and SAP score < 35 (Fig. S17D–E); 3 examples are shown in Fig. 5G.

The above approaches to protein-binder design require starting from a previously known binding motif, but hallucination should in principle be able to generate de novo interfaces as well. To test this, we used two-chain hallucination to optimize 12-residue peptides for binding to 12 targets starting from random sequences, minimizing an inter-chain entropy loss (Fig. S17H). Most of the hallucinated peptides bound at native protein interaction sites (Fig S18A); the remainder bound in hydrophobic grooves resembling protein binding sites (Fig. S18B). We used the same procedure to generate 55–80-residue binders against TrkA and PDL-1 without starting motif information, and obtained designs predicted by AF to complex with the target, at the native ligand binding site, with a target-aligned binder RMSD < 5 Å and an inter-PAE < 10 Å (Fig. S17F,G).

Unlike classical protein design pipelines, which treat backbone generation and sequence design as two separate problems, our methods simultaneously generate both sequence and structure, taking advantage of the ability of RosettaFold to reason over and jointly optimize both data types. This results in excellent performance in both generating protein backbones with a geometry capable of hosting a desired site and sequences which strongly encode these backbones. Our hallucinated and inpainted backbones accommodate all of the tested functional sites much more accurately than any naturally occurring protein in the PDB or AF predictions database (Fig. S20; Table S3; Supplementary Text), and our designed structures are predicted more confidently from their (single) sequences than most native proteins with known crystal structures, and on par with structurally validated de novo designed proteins (Fig. S7A–B). The hallucination and inpainting approaches are complementary: hallucination can generate diverse scaffolds for minimalist functional sites but is computationally expensive because it requires a forward and backward pass through the neural network to calculate gradients for each optimization step (Methods), while inpainting usually requires larger input motifs but is much less compute intensive, and outperforms the hallucination method when more starting information is provided. This difference in performance can be understood by considering the manifold in sequence-structure space corresponding to folded proteins. The inpainting approach can be viewed as projecting an incomplete input sequence-structure pair onto the subset of the manifold of folded proteins (as represented by RosettaFold) containing the functional site--if insufficient starting information is provided, this projection is not well determined, but with sufficient information, it produces protein-like solutions, updating sequence and structure information simultaneously. The loss function used in the hallucination approach is constructed with the goal that minima lie in the protein manifold, but there will likely not be a perfect correspondence, and hence stochastic optimization of the loss function in sequence space may not produce solutions that are as protein-like as those from the inpainting approach.

Conclusion

The approaches for scaffolding functional sites presented here require no inputs other than the structure and sequence of the desired functional site, and unlike previous methods, do not require specifying the secondary structure or topology of the scaffold and can simultaneously generate both sequence and structure. Despite a recent surge of interest in using machine learning to design protein sequences, the design of protein structure is relatively underexplored, likely due to the difficulty of efficiently representing and learning structure. Generative adversarial networks (GANs) and variational autoencoders (VAEs) have been used to generate protein backbones for specific fold families, whereas our approach leverages the training of RosettaFold on the entire PDB to generate an almost unlimited diversity of new structures and enable the scaffolding of any desired constellation of functional residues. Our “activation maximization” hallucination approach extends related work in this area by leveraging its key strength, the ability to use arbitrary loss functions tailored to specific problems and design any length sequence without retraining. The ability of our inpainting approach to expand from a given functional site to generate a coherent sequence-structure pair should find wide application in protein design because of its speed and generality. The two approaches individually, and the combination of the two, should increase in power as more-accurate protein structure, interface, and small molecule binding prediction networks are developed.

References 87

  1. 1.

    Khersonsky O, Wollacott AM, Jiang L, Dechancie J, Betker J, Gallaher JL, Althoff EA, Zanghellini A, Dym O, Albeck S, Houk KN, Tawfik DS, Baker D, Kemp elimination catalysts by computational enzyme design. 453 (2008 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature06879

  2. 2.

    Jiang L, Althoff EA, Clemente FR, Doyle L, Röthlisberger D, Zanghellini A, Gallaher JL, Betker JL, Tanaka F, Barbas CF, Hilvert D, Houk KN, Stoddard BL, Baker D, De Novo Computational Design of Retro-Aldol Enzymes. Science. 319, 1387–1391 (2008 ).

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1152692

  3. 3.

    Siegel JB, Zanghellini A, Lovick HM, Kiss G, Lambert AR, St. Clair JL, Gallaher J, Hilvert D, Gelb MH, Stoddard BL, Houk KN, Michael FE, Baker D, Computational Design of an Enzyme Catalyst for a Stereoselective Bimolecular Diels-Alder Reaction. Science. 329 (2010 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.1190239

  4. 4.
  5. 5.

    Chevalier AA, Silva D, Rocklin GJ, Derrick R, Vergara R, Murapa P, Bernard SM, Zhang L, Yao G, Bahl CD, Miyashita S, Goreshnik I, James T, Bryan M, Fernández-velasco DA, Stewart L, Dong M, Huang X, Massively parallel de novo protein design for targeted therapeutics. Nat. Publ. Group (2017 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1038/nature23912

  6. 6.

    Procko E, Berguig GY, Shen BW, Song Y, Frayo S, Convertine AJ, Margineantu D, Booth G, Correia BE, Cheng Y, Schief WR, Hockenbery DM, Press OW, Stoddard BL, Stayton PS, Baker D, A Computationally Designed Inhibitor of an Epstein-Barr Viral Bcl-2 Protein Induces Apoptosis in Infected Cells. Cell. 157, 1644–1656 (2014 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2014.04.034

  7. 7.

    Correia BE, Bates JT, Loomis RJ, Baneyx G, Carrico C, Jardine JG, Rupert P, Correnti C, Kalyuzhniy O, Vittal V, Connell MJ, Stevens E, Schroeter A, Chen M, MacPherson S, Serra AM, Adachi Y, Holmes MA, Li Y, Klevit RE, Graham BS, Wyatt RT, Baker D, Strong RK, Crowe JE, Johnson PR, Schief WR, Proof of principle for epitope-focused vaccine design. Nature. 507, 201–206 (2014 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/nature12966

  8. 8.

    Silva D-A, Yu S, Ulge UY, Spangler JB, Jude KM, Labão-Almeida C, Ali LR, Quijano-Rubio A, Ruterbusch M, Leung I, Biary T, Crowley SJ, Marcos E, Walkey CD, Weitzner BD, Pardo-Avila F, Castellanos J, Carter L, Stewart L, Riddell SR, Pepper M, Bernardes GJL, Dougan M, Garcia KC, Baker D, De novo design of potent and selective mimics of IL-2 and IL-15. Nature. 565, 186–191 (2019 ).

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

  9. 9.

    Sesterhenn F, Yang C, Bonet J, Cramer JT, Wen X, Wang Y, Chiang C-I, Abriata LA, Kucharska I, Castoro G, Vollers SS, Galloux M, Dheilly E, Rosset S, Corthésy P, Georgeon S, Villard M, Richard C-A, Descamps D, Delgado T, Oricchio E, Rameix-Welti M-A, Más V, Ervin S, Eléouët J-F, Riffault S, Bates JT, Julien J-P, Li Y, Jardetzky T, Krey T, Correia BE, De novo protein design enables the precise induction of RSV-neutralizing antibodies. Science. 368 (2020 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aay5051

  10. 10.

    Yang C, Sesterhenn F, Bonet J, van Aalen EA, Scheller L, Abriata LA, Cramer JT, Wen X, Rosset S, Georgeon S, Jardetzky T, Krey T, Fussenegger M, Merkx M, Correia BE, Bottom-up de novo design of functional proteins with complex structural features. Nat. Chem. Biol, 1–9 (2021 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41589-020-00699-x

  11. 11.

    Yang J, Anishchenko I, Park H, Peng Z, Ovchinnikov S, Baker D, Improved protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (2020 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1914677117

  12. 12.

    Anishchenko I, Pellock SJ, Chidyausiku TM, Ramelot TA, Ovchinnikov S, Hao J, Bafna K, Norn C, Kang A, Bera AK, DiMaio F, Carter L, Chow CM, Montelione GT, Baker D, De novo protein design by deep network hallucination. Nature. 600, 547–552 (2021 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-021-04184-w

  13. 13.

    Norn C, Wicky BIM, Juergens D, Liu S, Kim D, Tischer D, Koepnick B, Anishchenko I, Players F, Baker D, Ovchinnikov S, Protein sequence design by conformational landscape optimization. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 118 (2021 ), doi:.

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2017228118

  14. 14.

    Tischer D, Lisanza S, Wang J, Dong R, Anishchenko I, Milles LF, Ovchinnikov S, Baker D, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2020.11.29.402743

  15. 15.

    Pascolutti R, Sun X, Kao J, Maute RL, Ring AM, Bowman GR, Kruse AC, Structure and Dynamics of PD-L1 and an Ultra-High-Affinity PD-1 Receptor Mutant. Structure. 24, 1719–1728 (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2016.06.026

  16. 16.
  17. 17.

    Devlin J, Chang M-W, Lee K, Toutanova K, BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding. ArXiv181004805 Cs (2019 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1810.04805).

    Not in our library

  18. 18.

    Yeh RA, Chen C, Lim TY, Schwing AG, Hasegawa-Johnson M, Do MN, Semantic Image Inpainting with Deep Generative Models. ArXiv160707539 Cs (2017 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.07539).

    Not in our library

  19. 19.

    Li Z, Nguyen SP, Xu D, Shang Y, in 2017 IEEE 29th International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence (ICTAI) (2017 ), pp. 1085–1091.

    Not in our library

  20. 20.

    Anand N, Huang P, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 31, Bengio S, Wallach H, Larochelle H, Grauman K, Cesa-Bianchi N, Garnett R, Eds. (Curran Associates, Inc., 2018; http://papers.nips.cc/paper/7978-generative-modeling-for-protein-structures.pdf), pp. 7494–7505.

    Not in our library

  21. 21.
  22. 22.

    Chowdhury R, Bouatta N, Biswas S, Rochereau C, Church GM, Sorger PK, AlQuraishi M, Single-sequence protein structure prediction using language models from deep learning, 22.

    Not in our library

  23. 23.

    Berman HM, Westbrook J, Feng Z, Gilliland G, Bhat TN, Weissig H, Shindyalov IN, Bourne PE, The Protein Data Bank. Nucleic Acids Res. 28, 235–242 (2000 ).

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/28.1.235

  24. 24.

    Simons KT, Bonneau R, Ruczinski I, Baker D, Ab initio protein structure prediction of CASP III targets using ROSETTA. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 37, 171–176 (1999 ).

    Not in our library10.1002/(sici)1097-0134(1999)37:3+<171::aid-prot21>3.3.co;2-q

  25. 25.

    Kim T-E, Tsuboyama K, Houliston S, Martell CM, Phoumyvong CM, Haddox HK, Arrowsmith CH, Rocklin GJ, Dissecting the stability determinants of a challenging de novo protein fold using massively parallel design and experimentation (2021 ), p. 2021.12.17.472837,, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.12.17.472837

  26. 26.
  27. 27.

    Buel GR, Walters KJ, Can AlphaFold2 predict the impact of missense mutations on structure? Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 29, 1–2 (2022 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41594-021-00714-2

  28. 28.

    Mousa JJ, Kose N, Matta P, Gilchuk P, Crowe JE, A novel pre-fusion conformation-specific neutralizing epitope on the respiratory syncytial virus fusion protein. Nat. Microbiol. 2, 1–8 (2017 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/nmicrobiol.2016.271

  29. 29.
  30. 30.

    Frolow F, Kalb Gilboa AJ, Yariv J, Structure of a unique twofold symmetric haem-binding site. Nat. Struct. Biol. 1, 453–460 (1994 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/nsb0794-453

  31. 31.

    Lombardi A, Pirro F, Maglio O, Chino M, DeGrado WF, De Novo Design of Four-Helix Bundle Metalloproteins: One Scaffold, Diverse Reactivities. Acc. Chem. Res. 52, 1148–1159 (2019 ).

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.accounts.8b00674

  32. 32.

    Calhoun JR, Nastri F, Maglio O, Pavone V, Lombardi A, DeGrado WF, Artificial diiron proteins: From structure to function. Pept. Sci. 80, 264–278 (2005 ).

    Not in our library10.1002/bip.20230

  33. 33.

    Keech AM, Brun NEL, Wilson MT, Andrews SC, Moore GR, Thomson AJ, Spectroscopic Studies of Cobalt(II) Binding to Escherichia coli Bacterioferritin*. J. Biol. Chem. 272, 422–429 (1997 ).

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.272.1.422

  34. 34.

    Marsh ENG, DeGrado WF, Noncovalent self-assembly of a heterotetrameric diiron protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 99, 5150–5154 (2002 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.052023199

  35. 35.

    Yáñez M, Gil-Longo J, Campos-Toimil M, in Calcium Signaling, Islam Md. S., Ed. (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 2012; ), Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, pp. 461–482.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-94-007-2888-2_19

  36. 36.

    Caldwell SJ, Haydon IC, Piperidou N, Huang P-S, Bick MJ, Sjöström HS, Hilvert D, Baker D, Zeymer C, Tight and specific lanthanide binding in a de novo TIM barrel with a large internal cavity designed by symmetric domain fusion. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 117, 30362–30369 (2020 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.2008535117

  37. 37.

    Cho H-S, Ha N-C, Choi G, Kim H-J, Lee D, Oh KS, Kim KS, Lee W, Choi KY, Oh B-H, Crystal Structure of Δ5–3-Ketosteroid Isomerase from Pseudomonas testosteroni in Complex with Equilenin Settles the Correct Hydrogen Bonding Scheme for Transition State Stabilization*. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 32863–32868 (1999 ).

    Not in our library10.1074/jbc.274.46.32863

  38. 38.

    Maute RL, Gordon SR, Mayer AT, McCracken MN, Natarajan A, Ring NG, Kimura R, Tsai JM, Manglik A, Kruse AC, Gambhir SS, Weissman IL, Ring AM, Engineering high-affinity PD-1 variants for optimized immunotherapy and immuno-PET imaging. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 112, E6506–E6514 (2015 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1519623112

  39. 39.

    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. 401, 184–188 (1999 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/43705

  40. 40.

    Humphreys IR, Pei J, Baek M, Krishnakumar A, Anishchenko I, Ovchinnikov S, Zhang J, Ness TJ, Banjade S, Bagde SR, Stancheva VG, Li X-H, Liu K, Zheng Z, Barrero DJ, Roy U, Kuper J, Fernández IS, Szakal B, Branzei D, Rizo J, Kisker C, Greene EC, Biggins S, Keeney S, Miller EA, Fromme JC, Hendrickson TL, Cong Q, Baker D, Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes. Science. 0, eabm4805.

    Not in our library10.1126/science.abm4805

  41. 41.
  42. 42.

    Ingraham J, Garg VK, Barzilay R, Jaakkola T, Generative models for graph-based protein design, 10 (2019 ).

    Not in our library

  43. 43.

    Strokach A, Becerra D, Corbi-Verge C, Perez-Riba A, Kim PM, Fast and Flexible Protein Design Using Deep Graph Neural Networks. Cell Syst. 11, 402–411.e4 (2020 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cels.2020.08.016

  44. 44.

    Biswas S, Khimulya G, Alley EC, Esvelt KM, Church GM, Low- N protein engineering with data-efficient deep learning. Nat. Methods. 18, 389–396 (2021 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-021-01100-y

  45. 45.

    Repecka D, Jauniskis V, Karpus L, Rembeza E, Zrimec J, Poviloniene S, Rokaitis I, Laurynenas A, Abuajwa W, Savolainen O, Meskys R, Engqvist MKM, Zelezniak A, Expanding functional protein sequence space using generative adversarial networks. bioRxiv, 789719 (2019 ).

    Not in our library

  46. 46.
  47. 47.

    Wu Z, Johnston KE, Arnold FH, Yang KK, Protein sequence design with deep generative models. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 65, 18–27 (2021 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.04.004

  48. 48.
  49. 49.

    Madani A, Krause B, Greene ER, Subramanian S, Mohr BP, Holton JM, Olmos JL, Xiong C, Sun ZZ, Socher R, Fraser JS, Naik N, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.07.18.452833

  50. 50.

    Ovchinnikov S, Huang P-S, Structure-based protein design with deep learning. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 65, 136–144 (2021 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cbpa.2021.08.004

  51. 51.

    Anand N, Eguchi R, Huang P-S, Fully differentiable full-atom protein backbone generation (2019 ) (available at https://openreview.net/forum?id=SJxnVL8YOV).

    Not in our library

  52. 52.

    Eguchi RR, Anand N, Choe CA, Huang P-S, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2020.08.07.242347

  53. 53.

    Lin Z, Sercu T, LeCun Y, Rives A, Deep generative models create new and diverse protein structures, 17.

    Not in our library

  54. 54.

    Jendrusch M, Korbel JO, Sadiq SK, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.10.11.463937

  55. 55.

    Moffat L, Greener JG, Jones DT, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.08.24.457549

  56. 56.

    Moffat L, Kandathil SM, Jones DT, Design in the DARK: Learning Deep Generative Models for De Novo Protein Design (2022 ), p. 2022.01.27.478087,, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.01.27.478087

  57. 57.

    Li L, Liu Y, Tao J, Zhang M, Pan H, Xu X, Tang R, Surface Modification of Hydroxyapatite Nanocrystallite by a Small Amount of Terbium Provides a Biocompatible Fluorescent Probe. J. Phys. Chem. C 112, 12219–12224 (2008 ).

    Not in our library

  58. 58.

    Anishchenko I, Chidyausiku TM, Ovchinnikov S, Pellock SJ, Baker D, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2020.07.22.211482

  59. 59.

    Jang E, Gu S, Poole B, Categorical Reparameterization with Gumbel-Softmax. ArXiv161101144 Cs Stat (2017 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1611.01144).

    Not in our library

  60. 60.

    Bogard N, Linder J, Rosenberg AB, Seelig G, A Deep Neural Network for Predicting and Engineering Alternative Polyadenylation. Cell. 178, 91–106.e23 (2019 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.cell.2019.04.046

  61. 61.

    Linder J, Seelig G, Fast differentiable DNA and protein sequence optimization for molecular design. ArXiv200511275 Cs Stat (2020 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11275).

    Not in our library

  62. 62.

    Kingma DP, Ba J, Adam: A Method for Stochastic Optimization. ArXiv14126980 Cs (2017 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.6980).

    Not in our library

  63. 63.

    Rao RM, Liu J, Verkuil R, Meier J, Canny J, Abbeel P, Sercu T, Rives A, bioRxiv, in press, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2021.02.12.430858

  64. 64.

    Hsu C, Verkuil R, Liu J, Lin Z, Hie B, Sercu T, Lerer A, Rives A, Learning inverse folding from millions of predicted structures (2022 ), p. 2022.04.10.487779,, doi:.

    Not in our library10.1101/2022.04.10.487779

  65. 65.

    Chennamsetty N, Voynov V, Kayser V, Helk B, Trout BL, Design of therapeutic proteins with enhanced stability. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 106, 11937–11942 (2009 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.0904191106

  66. 66.

    Jha SK, Ramanathan A, Ewetz R, Velasquez A, Jha S, Protein Folding Neural Networks Are Not Robust. ArXiv210904460 Cs Q-Bio (2021 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2109.04460).

    Not in our library

  67. 67.

    Ilyas A, Santurkar S, Tsipras D, Engstrom L, Tran B, Madry A, Adversarial Examples Are Not Bugs, They Are Features. ArXiv190502175 Cs Stat (2019 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.02175).

    Not in our library

  68. 68.

    Demontis A, Melis M, Pintor M, Jagielski M, Biggio B, Oprea A, Nita-Rotaru C, Roli F, Why Do Adversarial Attacks Transfer? Explaining Transferability of Evasion and Poisoning Attacks. ArXiv180902861 Cs Stat (2019 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1809.02861).

    Not in our library

  69. 69.

    Dang B, Mravic M, Hu H, Schmidt N, Mensa B, DeGrado WF, SNAC-tag for sequence-specific chemical protein cleavage. Nat. Methods. 16, 319–322 (2019 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41592-019-0357-3

  70. 70.

    Studier FW, Protein production by auto-induction in high density shaking cultures. Protein Expr. Purif. 41, 207–234 (2005 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.pep.2005.01.016

  71. 71.

    Zhang Y, Skolnick J, TM-align: a protein structure alignment algorithm based on the TM-score. Nucleic Acids Res. 33, 2302–2309 (2005 ).

    Not in our library10.1093/nar/gki524

  72. 72.

    Jaegle A, Gimeno F, Brock A, Zisserman A, Vinyals O, Carreira J, Perceiver: General Perception with Iterative Attention. ArXiv210303206 Cs Eess (2021 ) (available at http://arxiv.org/abs/2103.03206).

    Not in our library

  73. 73.

    Kabsch W, A solution for the best rotation to relate two sets of vectors. Acta Crystallogr. A. 32, 922–923 (1976 ).

    Not in our library

  74. 74.

    Senior AW, Evans R, Jumper J, Kirkpatrick J, Sifre L, Green T, Qin C, Žídek A, Nelson AWR, Bridgland A, Penedones H, Petersen S, Simonyan K, Crossan S, Kohli P, Jones DT, Silver D, Kavukcuoglu K, Hassabis D, Improved protein structure prediction using potentials from deep learning. Nature, 1–5 (2020 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-019-1923-7

  75. 75.

    Alford RF, Leaver-Fay A, Jeliazkov JR, O’Meara MJ, DiMaio FP, Park H, Shapovalov MV, Renfrew PD, Mulligan VK, Kappel K, Labonte JW, Pacella MS, Bonneau R, Bradley P, Dunbrack RL, Das R, Baker D, Kuhlman B, Kortemme T, Gray JJ, The Rosetta All-Atom Energy Function for Macromolecular Modeling and Design. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 13, 3031–3048 (2017 ).

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125

  76. 76.

    Boyken SE, Chen Z, Groves B, Langan RA, Oberdorfer G, Ford A, Gilmore JM, Xu C, DiMaio F, Pereira JH, Sankaran B, Seelig G, Zwart PH, Baker D, De novo design of protein homo-oligomers with modular hydrogen-bond network--mediated specificity. Science. 352, 680–687 (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1126/science.aad8865

  77. 77.

    Silva D-A, Correia BE, Procko E, in Computational Design of Ligand Binding Proteins, Stoddard BL, Ed. (Springer, New York, NY, 2016; ), Methods in Molecular Biology, pp. 285–304.

    Not in our library10.1007/978-1-4939-3569-7_17

  78. 78.

    Steinegger M, Söding J, MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nat. Biotechnol. 35, 1026–1028 (2017 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/nbt.3988

  79. 79.

    Park H, Bradley P, Greisen P, Liu Y, Mulligan VK, Kim DE, Baker D, DiMaio F, Simultaneous Optimization of Biomolecular Energy Functions on Features from Small Molecules and Macromolecules. J. Chem. Theory Comput. 12, 6201–6212 (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1021/acs.jctc.6b00819

  80. 80.

    Hornak V, Abel R, Okur A, Strockbine B, Roitberg A, Simmerling C, Comparison of multiple Amber force fields and development of improved protein backbone parameters. Proteins Struct. Funct. Bioinforma. 65, 712–725 (2006 ).

    Not in our library10.1002/prot.21123

  81. 81.

    Pascolutti R, Sun X, Kao J, Maute RL, Ring AM, Bowman GR, Kruse AC, Structure and Dynamics of PD-L1 and an Ultra-High-Affinity PD-1 Receptor Mutant. Structure. 24, 1719–1728 (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2016.06.026

  82. 82.

    McLellan JS, Chen M, Kim A, Yang Y, Graham BS, Kwong PD, Structural basis of respiratory syncytial virus neutralization by motavizumab. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 17, 248–250 (2010 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/nsmb.1723

  83. 83.

    Shang J, Ye G, Shi K, Wan Y, Luo C, Aihara H, Geng Q, Auerbach A, Li F, Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. Nature. 581, 221–224 (2020 ).

    Not in our library10.1038/s41586-020-2179-y

  84. 84.

    Fallon JL, Quiocho FA, A Closed Compact Structure of Native Ca2+-Calmodulin. Structure. 11, 1303–1307 (2003 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/j.str.2003.09.004

  85. 85.

    Kim CU, Song H, Avvaru BS, Gruner SM, Park S, McKenna R, Tracking solvent and protein movement during CO2 release in carbonic anhydrase II crystals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113, 5257–5262 (2016 ).

    Not in our library10.1073/pnas.1520786113

  86. 86.

    Kussie PH, Gorina S, Marechal V, Elenbaas B, Moreau J, Levine AJ, Pavletich NP, Structure of the MDM2 Oncoprotein Bound to the p53 Tumor Suppressor Transactivation Domain. Sci. New Ser 274, 948–953 (1996 ).

    Not in our library10.1126/science.274.5289.948

  87. 87.

    Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ, Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 215, 403–410 (1990 ).

    Not in our library10.1016/s0022-2836(05)80360-2

Cited by papers we hold 15

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.