ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021
A base measure of precision for protein stability predictors: structural sensitivity.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- HERMES: Holographic Equivariant neuRal network model for Mutational Effect and Stability prediction.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Decoding phospho-regulation and flanking regions in autophagy-associated short linear motifs.Communications biology · 2025Article
- HPOseq: a deep ensemble model for predicting the protein-phenotype relationships based on protein sequences.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Stability Oracle: a structure-based graph-transformer framework for identifying stabilizing mutations.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Machine Learning-Guided Protein Engineering.ACS catalysis · 2023Review
- Correspondence between functional scores from deep mutational scans and predicted effects on protein stability.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2023Article
- Stability and expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein mutations.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2023Article
- Article
- Structural heterogeneity and precision of implications drawn from cryo-electron microscopy structures: SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein mutations as a test case.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2022Article
- Smaller, Stronger, More Stable: Peptide Variants of a SARS-CoV-2 Neutralizing Miniprotein.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Proteins' Evolution upon Point Mutations.ACS omega · 2022Article
- Predicting protein stability changes upon single-point mutation: a thorough comparison of the available tools on a new dataset.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Systematic evaluation of computational tools to predict the effects of mutations on protein stability in the absence of experimental structures.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Turning Failures into Applications: The Problem of Protein ΔΔG Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Article
- Genome sequence diversity of SARS-CoV-2 obtained from clinical samples in Uzbekistan.PloS one · 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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrediction of the change in fold stability (ΔΔG) of a protein upon mutation is of major importance to protein engineering and screening of disease-causing variants. Many prediction methods can use 3D structural information to predict ΔΔG. While the performance of these methods has been extensively studied, a new problem has arisen due to the abundance of crystal structures: How precise are these methods in terms of structure input used, which structure should be used, and how much does it matter? Thus, there is a need to quantify the structural sensitivity of protein stability prediction methods.
resultsWe computed the structural sensitivity of six widely-used prediction methods by use of saturated computational mutagenesis on a diverse set of 87 structures of 25 proteins. Our results show that structural sensitivity varies massively and surprisingly falls into two very distinct groups, with methods that take detailed account of the local environment showing a sensitivity of ~ 0.6 to 0.8 kcal/mol, whereas machine-learning methods display much lower sensitivity (~ 0.1 kcal/mol). We also observe that the precision correlates with the accuracy for mutation-type-balanced data sets but not generally reported accuracy of the methods, indicating the importance of mutation-type balance in both contexts.
conclusionsThe structural sensitivity of stability prediction methods varies greatly and is caused mainly by the models and less by the actual protein structural differences. As a new recommended standard, we therefore suggest that ΔΔG values are evaluated on three protein structures when available and the associated standard deviation reported, to emphasize not just the accuracy but also the precision of the method in a specific study. Our observation that machine-learning methods deemphasize structure may indicate that folded wild-type structures alone, without the folded mutant and unfolded structures, only add modest value for assessing protein stability effects, and that side-chain-sensitive methods overstate the significance of the folded wild-type structure.
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.