Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33632133›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2021

A base measure of precision for protein stability predictors: structural sensitivity.

Octav Caldararu, Tom L Blundell, Kasper P Kepp

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Stability and expression of SARS-CoV-2 spike-protein mutations.Molecular and cellular biochemistry · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Turning Failures into Applications: The Problem of Protein ΔΔG Prediction.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  15. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Octav CaldararuDTU Chemistry, Technical University of Denmark, Building 206, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5900-6568
Tom L BlundellDepartment of Biochemistry, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, CB2 1GA, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2708-8992
Kasper P KeppDTU Chemistry, Technical University of Denmark, Building 206, 2800, Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark. kpj@kemi.dtu.dk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6754-7348
Technical University of Denmark · DKUniversity of Cambridge · GB

Funding

Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond 8022-00041B
6 · The paper itself

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

Protein EngineeringProteinsProtein StabilityMutagenesisThermodynamicsProteinsComputationMutationProtein stabilityProtein structureStructural sensitivity

Identifiers

PMID33632133
PMCPMC7908712
OpenAlexW3133259203

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.