Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34296736›Full record

ReviewProtein engineering, design & selection : PEDS2021

Machine learning for enzyme engineering, selection and design.

Ryan Feehan, Daniel Montezano, Joanna S G Slusky

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Protein engineering, design & selection : PEDS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Advances in Machine Learning Models for Predicting Enzyme Kinetic Parameters.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Reaction Engineering of In Vitro Natural Product Biosynthesis: Challenges and Strategies.Chembiochem : a European journal of chemical biology · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Enhancing luciferase activity and stability through generative modeling of natural enzyme sequences.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  20. 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.

Ryan FeehanCenter for Computational Biology, The University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS 66047-1620, USA.
Daniel MontezanoCenter for Computational Biology, The University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS 66047-1620, USA.
Joanna S G SluskyCenter for Computational Biology, The University of Kansas, 2030 Becker Dr., Lawrence, KS 66047-1620, USA.

Funding

DESIGNED BETA-STRANDS FOR INHIBITING EFFLUX PUMPS AND DISABLING ANTIBIOTIC RESISTANCEDP2GM128201 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI SLUSKY, JOANNA SG · 2017 to 2017
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM128201
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning is a useful computational tool for large and complex tasks such as those in the field of enzyme engineering, selection and design. In this review, we examine enzyme-related applications of machine learning. We start by comparing tools that can identify the function of an enzyme and the site responsible for that function. Then we detail methods for optimizing important experimental properties, such as the enzyme environment and enzyme reactants. We describe recent advances in enzyme systems design and enzyme design itself. Throughout we compare and contrast the data and algorithms used for these tasks to illustrate how the algorithms and data can be best used by future designers.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsMachine Learningdeep learningenzyme designenzyme engineeringmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID34296736
PMCPMC8299298

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.