Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28358804›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2017

A critical analysis of computational protein design with sparse residue interaction graphs.

Swati Jain, Jonathan D Jou, Ivelin S Georgiev, Bruce R Donald

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS computational biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Protocol for DesigningJournal of computational biology : a journal of computational molecular cell biology · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

4 authors.

Swati JainComputational Biology and Bioinformatics Program, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Jonathan D JouDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7172-9032
Ivelin S GeorgievDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.
Bruce R DonaldDepartment of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6884-4398

Funding

Computational Structure-Based Protein DesignR01GM078031 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI DONALD, BRUCE R. · 2008 to 2021
$4.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM078031
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein design algorithms enumerate a combinatorial number of candidate structures to compute the Global Minimum Energy Conformation (GMEC). To efficiently find the GMEC, protein design algorithms must methodically reduce the conformational search space. By applying distance and energy cutoffs, the protein system to be designed can thus be represented using a sparse residue interaction graph, where the number of interacting residue pairs is less than all pairs of mutable residues, and the corresponding GMEC is called the sparse GMEC. However, ignoring some pairwise residue interactions can lead to a change in the energy, conformation, or sequence of the sparse GMEC vs. the original or the full GMEC. Despite the widespread use of sparse residue interaction graphs in protein design, the above mentioned effects of their use have not been previously analyzed. To analyze the costs and benefits of designing with sparse residue interaction graphs, we computed the GMECs for 136 different protein design problems both with and without distance and energy cutoffs, and compared their energies, conformations, and sequences. Our analysis shows that the differences between the GMECs depend critically on whether or not the design includes core, boundary, or surface residues. Moreover, neglecting long-range interactions can alter local interactions and introduce large sequence differences, both of which can result in significant structural and functional changes. Designs on proteins with experimentally measured thermostability show it is beneficial to compute both the full and the sparse GMEC accurately and efficiently. To this end, we show that a provable, ensemble-based algorithm can efficiently compute both GMECs by enumerating a small number of conformations, usually fewer than 1000. This provides a novel way to combine sparse residue interaction graphs with provable, ensemble-based algorithms to reap the benefits of sparse residue interaction graphs while avoiding their potential inaccuracies.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsComputational BiologyComputer GraphicsHumansModels, MolecularProtein ConformationProtein EngineeringProteinsSoftwareThermodynamicsProteins

Identifiers

PMID28358804
PMCPMC5391103

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.