Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30566669›Full record

ArticleProtein engineering, design & selection : PEDS2018

Unintended specificity of an engineered ligand-binding protein facilitated by unpredicted plasticity of the protein fold.

Austin L Day, Per Greisen, Lindsey Doyle, Alberto Schena, Nephi Stella, Kai Johnsson, David Baker, Barry Stoddard

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Advances in the Computational Design of Small-Molecule-Controlled Protein-Based Circuits for Synthetic Biology.Proceedings of the IEEE. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers · 2022
    Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Austin L DayDepartments of Bioengineering and Biochemistry, University of Washington, Molecular Engineering and Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA.
Per GreisenDepartments of Bioengineering and Biochemistry, University of Washington, Molecular Engineering and Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA.
Lindsey DoyleDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave. N., Seattle, WA, USA.
Alberto SchenaEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nephi StellaDepartments of Bioengineering and Biochemistry, University of Washington, Molecular Engineering and Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA.
Kai JohnssonEcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
David BakerDepartments of Bioengineering and Biochemistry, University of Washington, Molecular Engineering and Sciences, Seattle, WA, USA.
Barry StoddardDivision of Basic Sciences, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, 1100 Fairview Ave. N., Seattle, WA, USA.
University of Washington · USÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · CHFred Hutch Cancer Center · US

Funding

Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities Research CenterU54HD083091 · NICHD · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GARDEN, GWENN A · 2014 to 2019
$7.9M
Determination of the basis of ligand binding via engineering and crystallographyR01GM115545 · NIGMS · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI STODDARD, BARRY L. · 2015 to 2018
$1.4M
NICHD NIH HHS U54 HD083091NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM115545
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Attempts to create novel ligand-binding proteins often focus on formation of a binding pocket with shape complementarity against the desired ligand (particularly for compounds that lack distinct polar moieties). Although designed proteins often exhibit binding of the desired ligand, in some cases they display unintended recognition behavior. One such designed protein, that was originally intended to bind tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), was found instead to display binding of 25-hydroxy-cholecalciferol (25-D3) and was subjected to biochemical characterization, further selections for enhanced 25-D3 binding affinity and crystallographic analyses. The deviation in specificity is due in part to unexpected altertion of its conformation, corresponding to a significant change of the orientation of an α-helix and an equally large movement of a loop, both of which flank the designed ligand-binding pocket. Those changes led to engineered protein constructs that exhibit significantly more contacts and complementarity towards the 25-D3 ligand than the initial designed protein had been predicted to form towards its intended THC ligand. Molecular dynamics simulations imply that the initial computationally designed mutations may contribute to the movement of the helix. These analyses collectively indicate that accurate prediction and control of backbone dynamics conformation, through a combination of improved conformational sampling and/or de novo structure design, represents a key area of further development for the design and optimization of engineered ligand-binding proteins.

Indexed as

Protein EngineeringAmino Acid SequenceCalcifediolCrystallography, X-RayLigandsMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein BindingProteinsProtein Structure, SecondarySubstrate SpecificityCalcifediolLigandsProteinsaffinity versus specificitycrystal structureligand bindingprotein engineering

Identifiers

PMID30566669
PMCPMC6692866
OpenAlexW2905508400

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.