ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Machine learning-assisted substrate binding pocket engineering based on structural information.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stability and functional consequences of disulfide bond engineering in Aspergillus flavus uricase.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Enhancing substrate specificity of microbial transglutaminase for precise nanobody labeling.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Engineering enzyme-substrate binding pockets is the most efficient approach for modifying catalytic activity, but is limited if the substrate binding sites are indistinct. Here, we developed a 3D convolutional neural network for predicting protein-ligand binding sites. The network was integrated by DenseNet, UNet, and self-attention for extracting features and recovering sample size. We attempted to enlarge the dataset by data augmentation, and the model achieved success rates of 48.4%, 35.5%, and 43.6% at a precision of ≥50% and 52%, 47.6%, and 58.1%. The distance of predicted and real center is ≤4 Å, which is based on SC6K, COACH420, and BU48 validation datasets. The substrate binding sites of Klebsiella variicola acid phosphatase (KvAP) and Bacillus anthracis proline 4-hydroxylase (BaP4H) were predicted using DUnet, showing high competitive performance of 53.8% and 56% of the predicted binding sites that critically affected the catalysis of KvAP and BaP4H. Virtual saturation mutagenesis was applied based on the predicted binding sites of KvAP, and the top-ranked 10 single mutations contributed to stronger enzyme-substrate binding varied while the predicted sites were different. The advantage of DUnet for predicting key residues responsible for enzyme activity further promoted the success rate of virtual mutagenesis. This study highlighted the significance of correctly predicting key binding sites for enzyme engineering.
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.