ArticleActa pharmaceutica Sinica. B2025
VenusMutHub: A systematic evaluation of protein mutation effect predictors on small-scale experimental data.
Article in Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- TcrDesign: de novo design of epitope-specific full-length T cell receptors.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Article
- An enzyme-specific protein language model for catalytic property prediction.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Protein foundation models: a comprehensive survey.Science China. Life sciences · 2026Review
- From machine learning to multimodal models: The AI revolution in enzyme engineering.Biodesign research · 2026Review
- Predicting genetic evolution of viruses to identify suitable vaccines using artificial intelligence.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Proteins and Peptides: A Comprehensive Overview from Hybrid Modeling to Deep Learning.Current protein & peptide science · 2026Article
- VenusMutHub-A benchmark for protein mutation effect prediction.Acta pharmaceutica Sinica. B · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In protein engineering, while computational models are increasingly used to predict mutation effects, their evaluations primarily rely on high-throughput deep mutational scanning (DMS) experiments that use surrogate readouts, which may not adequately capture the complex biochemical properties of interest. Many proteins and their functions cannot be assessed through high-throughput methods due to technical limitations or the nature of the desired properties, and this is particularly true for the real industrial application scenario. Therefore, the desired testing datasets, will be small-size (∼10-100) experimental data for each protein, and involve as many proteins as possible and as many properties as possible, which is, however, lacking. Here, we present VenusMutHub, a comprehensive benchmark study using 905 small-scale experimental datasets curated from published literature and public databases, spanning 527 proteins across diverse functional properties including stability, activity, binding affinity, and selectivity. These datasets feature direct biochemical measurements rather than surrogate readouts, providing a more rigorous assessment of model performance in predicting mutations that affect specific molecular functions. We evaluate 23 computational models across various methodological paradigms, such as sequence-based, structure-informed and evolutionary approaches. This benchmark provides practical guidance for selecting appropriate prediction methods in protein engineering applications where accurate prediction of specific functional properties is crucial.
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.