ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2010
Scoring function to predict solubility mutagenesis.
Article in Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Practical Guide to Computational Tools for Engineering Biocatalytic Properties.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Stability of Protein Pharmaceuticals: Recent Advances.Pharmaceutical research · 2024Review
- Integration of persistent Laplacian and pre-trained transformer for protein solubility changes upon mutation.Computers in biology and medicine · 2024Article
- Article
- Two physics-based models for pH-dependent calculations of protein solubility.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Article
- SoluProtMutComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- PON-Sol2: Prediction of Effects of Variants on Protein Solubility.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Solubility and Aggregation of Selected Proteins Interpreted on the Basis of Hydrophobicity Distribution.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Article
- Engineering of a borneol dehydrogenase from P. putida for the enzymatic resolution of camphor.Applied microbiology and biotechnology · 2021Article
- Solubility of proteins.ADMET & DMPK · 2020Article
- Correlation Between Protein Primary Structure and Soluble Expression Level of HSA dAb inFood technology and biotechnology · 2018Article
- SODA: prediction of protein solubility from disorder and aggregation propensity.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMutagenesis is commonly used to engineer proteins with desirable properties not present in the wild type (WT) protein, such as increased or decreased stability, reactivity, or solubility. Experimentalists often have to choose a small subset of mutations from a large number of candidates to obtain the desired change, and computational techniques are invaluable to make the choices. While several such methods have been proposed to predict stability and reactivity mutagenesis, solubility has not received much attention.
resultsWe use concepts from computational geometry to define a three body scoring function that predicts the change in protein solubility due to mutations. The scoring function captures both sequence and structure information. By exploring the literature, we have assembled a substantial database of 137 single- and multiple-point solubility mutations. Our database is the largest such collection with structural information known so far. We optimize the scoring function using linear programming (LP) methods to derive its weights based on training. Starting with default values of 1, we find weights in the range [0,2] so that predictions of increase or decrease in solubility are optimized. We compare the LP method to the standard machine learning techniques of support vector machines (SVM) and the Lasso. Using statistics for leave-one-out (LOO), 10-fold, and 3-fold cross validations (CV) for training and prediction, we demonstrate that the LP method performs the best overall. For the LOOCV, the LP method has an overall accuracy of 81%. AVAILABILITY: Executables of programs, tables of weights, and datasets of mutants are available from the following web page: http://www.wsu.edu/~kbala/OptSolMut.html.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.