Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32896279›Full record

ArticleMethods in enzymology2020

The use of consensus sequence information to engineer stability and activity in proteins.

Matt Sternke, Katherine W Tripp, Doug Barrick

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in enzymology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Protein engineering: status report.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Insight into Protein Engineering: FromCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2025
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The stability and dynamics of computationally designed proteins.Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS · 2022
    Review
  20. Review
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.

Matt SternkeT.C. Jenkins Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States; Program in Molecular Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Katherine W TrippT.C. Jenkins Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States.
Doug BarrickT.C. Jenkins Department of Biophysics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, United States. Electronic address: barrick@jhu.edu.

Funding

PROGRAM IN MOLECULAR BIOPHYSICST32GM008403 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BARRICK, DOUGLAS E. · 1990 to 2019
$13.5M
REPEAT-PROTEINS;STABILITY, FOLDING KINETICS &EVOLUTIONR01GM068462 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI BARRICK, DOUGLAS E. · 2005 to 2025
$6.3M
Investigating Consensus Sequence Design as a Means to Create Hyperstable Functional ProteinsF31GM128295 · NIGMS · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI STERNKE, MATTHEW · 2018 to 2019
$90k
NIGMS NIH HHS F31 GM128295NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM068462NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008403
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The goal of protein design is to create proteins that are stable, soluble, and active. Here we focus on one approach to protein design in which sequence information is used to create a "consensus" sequence. Such consensus sequences comprise the most common residue at each position in a multiple sequence alignment (MSA). After describing some general ideas that relate MSA and consensus sequences and presenting a statistical thermodynamic framework that relates consensus and non-consensus sequences to stability, we detail the process of designing a consensus sequence and survey reports of consensus design and characterization from the literature. Many of these consensus proteins retain native biological activities including ligand binding and enzyme activity. Remarkably, in most cases the consensus protein shows significantly higher stability than extant versions of the protein, as measured by thermal or chemical denaturation, consistent with the statistical thermodynamic model. To understand this stability increase, we compare various features of consensus sequences with the extant MSA sequences from which they were derived. Consensus sequences show enrichment in charged residues (most notably glutamate and lysine) and depletion of uncharged polar residues (glutamine, serine, and asparagine). Surprisingly, a survey of stability changes resulting from point substitutions show little correlation with residue frequencies at the corresponding positions within the MSA, suggesting that the high stability of consensus proteins may result from interactions among residue pairs or higher-order clusters. Whatever the source, the large number of reported successes demonstrates that consensus design is a viable route to generating active and in many cases highly stabilized proteins.

Indexed as

ProteinsAmino Acid SequenceConsensus SequenceSequence AlignmentThermodynamicsProteinsBioinformaticsConsensus sequencesMultiple sequence alignmentsProtein designProtein engineeringProtein stability

Identifiers

PMID32896279
PMCPMC8098710

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.