ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2021
De novo proteins from random sequences through in vitro evolution.
Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Descent from a common ancestor restricts exploration of protein sequence space.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026Article
- Unexplored regions of the protein sequence-structure map revealed at scale by a library of foldtuned language models.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- EasyDIVER + : An Advanced Tool for Analyzing High Throughput Sequencing Data from In Vitro Evolution of Nucleic Acids or Amino Acids.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Intellectual frameworks to understand complex biochemical systems at the origin of life.Nature chemistry · 2025Article
- Evolution and synthetic biology.Current opinion in microbiology · 2023Review
- Experimental characterization of de novo proteins and their unevolved random-sequence counterparts.Nature ecology & evolution · 2023Article
- Selection and evolution of disulfide-rich peptidesChemical science · 2023Article
- Nature-inspired engineering of an artificial ligase enzyme by domain fusion.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Modern and prebiotic amino acids support distinct structural profiles in proteins.Open biology · 2022Article
- Peptides before and during the nucleotide world: an origins story emphasizing cooperation between proteins and nucleic acids.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2022Review
- The constrained disorder principle defines living organisms and provides a method for correcting disturbed biological systems.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Natural proteins are the result of billions of years of evolution. The earliest predecessors of today's proteins are believed to have emerged from random polypeptides. While we have no means to determine how this process exactly happened, there is great interest in understanding how it reasonably could have happened. We are reviewing how researchers have utilized in vitro selection and molecular evolution methods to investigate plausible scenarios for the emergence of early functional proteins. The studies range from analyzing general properties and structural features of unevolved random polypeptides to isolating de novo proteins with specific functions from synthetic randomized sequence libraries or generating novel proteins by combining evolution with rational design. While the results are exciting, more work is needed to fully unravel the mechanisms that seeded protein-dominated biology.
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.