ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2022
Two physics-based models for pH-dependent calculations of protein solubility.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Two physics-based models for pH-dependent calculations of protein solubility.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022Article
- Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When engineering a protein for its biological function, many physicochemical properties are also optimized throughout the engineering process, and the protein's solubility is among the most important properties to consider. Here, we report two novel computational methods to calculate the pH-dependent protein solubility, and to rank the solubility of mutants. The first is an empirical method developed for fast ranking of the solubility of a large number of mutants of a protein. It takes into account electrostatic solvation energy term calculated using Generalized Born approximation, hydrophobic patches, protein charge, and charge asymmetry, as well as the changes of protein stability upon mutation. This method has been tested on over 100 mutations for 17 globular proteins, as well as on 44 variants of five different antibodies. The prediction rate is over 80%. The antibody tests showed a Pearson correlation coefficient, R, with experimental data from .83 to .91. The second method is based on a novel, completely force-field-based approach using CHARMm program modules to calculate the binding energy of the protein to a part of the crystal lattice, generated from X-ray structure. The method predicted with very high accuracy the solubility of Ribonuclease SA and its 3K and 5K mutants as a function of pH without any parameter adjustments of the existing BIOVIA Discovery Studio binding affinity model. Our methods can be used for rapid screening of large numbers of design candidates based on solubility, and to guide the design of solution conditions for antibody formulation.
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.