ArticleJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology2011
Optimization of combinatorial mutagenesis.
Article in Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enhancing prediction accuracy for enzyme activity engineering through sequence co-evolution and epistatic relationship modeling.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- High throughput screening of eukaryotic release factor 1 variants to enhance noncanonical amino acid incorporation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Optimal trade-off control in machine learning-based library design, with application to adeno-associated virus (AAV) for gene therapy.Science advances · 2024Article
- Machine-learning-guided Directed Evolution for AAV Capsid Engineering.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Review
- Deimmunization of protein therapeutics - Recent advances in experimental and computational epitope prediction and deletion.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021Review
- DeCoDe: degenerate codon design for complete protein-coding DNA libraries.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Computationally optimized deimmunization libraries yield highly mutated enzymes with low immunogenicity and enhanced activity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017Article
- EpiSweep: Computationally Driven Reengineering of Therapeutic Proteins to Reduce Immunogenicity While Maintaining Function.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
- Enriching Peptide Libraries for Binding Affinity and Specificity Through Computationally Directed Library Design.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
- Algorithms for protein design.Current opinion in structural biology · 2016Review
- Structure-based design of combinatorial mutagenesis libraries.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2015Article
- SwiftLib: rapid degenerate-codon-library optimization through dynamic programming.Nucleic acids research · 2015Article
- Structure-guided deimmunization of therapeutic proteins.Journal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2013Article
- Structure-based redesign of the binding specificity of anti-apoptotic Bcl-x(L).Journal of molecular biology · 2013Article
- Designing specific protein-protein interactions using computation, experimental library screening, or integrated methods.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2012Review
- Pareto Optimization of Combinatorial Mutagenesis Libraries.IEEE/ACM transactions on computational biology and bioinformaticsArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
Protein engineering by combinatorial site-directed mutagenesis evaluates a portion of the sequence space near a target protein, seeking variants with improved properties (e.g., stability, activity, immunogenicity). In order to improve the hit-rate of beneficial variants in such mutagenesis libraries, we develop methods to select optimal positions and corresponding sets of the mutations that will be used, in all combinations, in constructing a library for experimental evaluation. Our approach, OCoM (Optimization of Combinatorial Mutagenesis), encompasses both degenerate oligonucleotides and specified point mutations, and can be directed accordingly by requirements of experimental cost and library size. It evaluates the quality of the resulting library by one- and two-body sequence potentials, averaged over the variants. To ensure that it is not simply recapitulating extant sequences, it balances the quality of a library with an explicit evaluation of the novelty of its members. We show that, despite dealing with a combinatorial set of variants, in our approach the resulting library optimization problem is actually isomorphic to single-variant optimization. By the same token, this means that the two-body sequence potential results in an NP-hard optimization problem. We present an efficient dynamic programming algorithm for the one-body case and a practically-efficient integer programming approach for the general two-body case. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our approach in designing libraries for three different case study proteins targeted by previous combinatorial libraries--a green fluorescent protein, a cytochrome P450, and a beta lactamase. We found that OCoM worked quite efficiently in practice, requiring only 1 hour even for the massive design problem of selecting 18 mutations to generate 10⁷ variants of a 443-residue P450. We demonstrate the general ability of OCoM in enabling the protein engineer to explore and evaluate trade-offs between quality and novelty as well as library construction technique, and identify optimal libraries for experimental evaluation.
Indexed as
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.