Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33347442›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

Assessment of software methods for estimating protein-protein relative binding affinities.

Tawny R Gonzalez, Kyle P Martin, Jonathan E Barnes, Jagdish Suresh Patel, F Marty Ytreberg

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Fast, accurate ranking of engineered proteins by target-binding propensity using structure modeling.Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Little Brown Bats (Viruses · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tawny R GonzalezInstitute for Modeling Collaboration and Innovation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-9560-6798
Kyle P MartinInstitute for Modeling Collaboration and Innovation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.
Jonathan E BarnesInstitute for Modeling Collaboration and Innovation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5434-1391
Jagdish Suresh PatelInstitute for Modeling Collaboration and Innovation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-4999-5347
F Marty YtrebergInstitute for Modeling Collaboration and Innovation, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-7439-8224
University of Idaho · US

Funding

Sequence-structure-function relationships in human visual photopigmentsP20GM104420 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI VAN LEUVEN, JAMES · 2015 to 2024
$22.9M
Genomics Resources Core (GRC)P30GM103324 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF IDAHO · PI SETTLES, MATTHEW · 2013 to 2017
$5.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM104420NIGMS NIH HHS P30 GM103324
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A growing number of computational tools have been developed to accurately and rapidly predict the impact of amino acid mutations on protein-protein relative binding affinities. Such tools have many applications, for example, designing new drugs and studying evolutionary mechanisms. In the search for accuracy, many of these methods employ expensive yet rigorous molecular dynamics simulations. By contrast, non-rigorous methods use less exhaustive statistical mechanics, allowing for more efficient calculations. However, it is unclear if such methods retain enough accuracy to replace rigorous methods in binding affinity calculations. This trade-off between accuracy and computational expense makes it difficult to determine the best method for a particular system or study. Here, eight non-rigorous computational methods were assessed using eight antibody-antigen and eight non-antibody-antigen complexes for their ability to accurately predict relative binding affinities (ΔΔG) for 654 single mutations. In addition to assessing accuracy, we analyzed the CPU cost and performance for each method using a variety of physico-chemical structural features. This allowed us to posit scenarios in which each method may be best utilized. Most methods performed worse when applied to antibody-antigen complexes compared to non-antibody-antigen complexes. Rosetta-based JayZ and EasyE methods classified mutations as destabilizing (ΔΔG < -0.5 kcal/mol) with high (83-98%) accuracy and a relatively low computational cost for non-antibody-antigen complexes. Some of the most accurate results for antibody-antigen systems came from combining molecular dynamics with FoldX with a correlation coefficient (r) of 0.46, but this was also the most computationally expensive method. Overall, our results suggest these methods can be used to quickly and accurately predict stabilizing versus destabilizing mutations but are less accurate at predicting actual binding affinities. This study highlights the need for continued development of reliable, accessible, and reproducible methods for predicting binding affinities in antibody-antigen proteins and provides a recipe for using current methods.

Indexed as

SoftwareAntibodiesAntigensComputational BiologyDatasets as TopicKineticsMutationProtein BindingAntibodiesAntigens

Identifiers

PMID33347442
PMCPMC7751979
OpenAlexW3113869639

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.