ArticleGenetics2018
Beyond Thermodynamic Constraints: Evolutionary Sampling Generates Realistic Protein Sequence Variation.
Article in Genetics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Accurate prediction of substitution rates at protein sites with a mutation-selection model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- In silico evolution of globular protein folds from random sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Atomistic simulation of protein evolution reveals sequence covariation and time-dependent fluctuations of site-specific substitution rates.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Site-Specific Amino Acid Distributions Follow a Universal Shape.Journal of molecular evolution · 2020Article
- The Many Nuanced Evolutionary Consequences of Duplicated Genes.Molecular biology and evolution · 2019Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Biological evolution generates a surprising amount of site-specific variability in protein sequences. Yet, attempts at modeling this process have been only moderately successful, and current models based on protein structural metrics explain, at best, 60% of the observed variation. Surprisingly, simple measures of protein structure, such as solvent accessibility, are often better predictors of site-specific variability than more complex models employing all-atom energy functions and detailed structural modeling. We suggest here that these more complex models perform poorly because they lack consideration of the evolutionary process, which is, in part, captured by the simpler metrics. We compare protein sequences that are computationally designed to sequences that are computationally evolved using the same protein-design energy function and to homologous natural sequences. We find that, by a wide variety of metrics, evolved sequences are much more similar to natural sequences than are designed sequences. In particular, designed sequences are too conserved on the protein surface relative to natural sequences, whereas evolved sequences are not. Our results suggest that evolutionary simulation produces a realistic sampling of sequence space. By contrast, protein design-at least as currently implemented-does not. Existing energy functions seem to be sufficiently accurate to correctly describe the key thermodynamic constraints acting on protein sequences, but they need to be paired with realistic sampling schemes to generate realistic sequence alignments.
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.