Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20929563›Full record

ArticleAlgorithms for molecular biology : AMB2010

Scoring function to predict solubility mutagenesis.

Ye Tian, Christopher Deutsch, Bala Krishnamoorthy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 86% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Two physics-based models for pH-dependent calculations of protein solubility.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022
    Article
  6. SoluProtMutComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022
    Article
  7. PON-Sol2: Prediction of Effects of Variants on Protein Solubility.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Solubility of proteins.ADMET & DMPK · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ye TianDepartment of Mathematics, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA. bkrishna@math.wsu.edu.
Christopher Deutsch
Bala Krishnamoorthy
Washington State University · USPortland State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID20929563
PMCPMC2958853
OpenAlexW2139762959

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.