ArticlePloS one2025
Resolution of physics and deep learning-based protein engineering filters: A case study with a lipase for industrial substrate hydrolysis.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Advancing NanoLuc Luciferase Stability beyond Directed Evolution and Rational Design through Expert-Guided Deep Learning.ACS catalysis · 2026Article
- Molecular Survival Strategies Against Kidney Filtration: Implications for Therapeutic Protein Engineering.Biophysica · 2026Article
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Computational enzyme design remains a powerful yet imperfect tool for optimizing biocatalysts, especially when targeting non-natural substrates. Using design tools we investigated Pseudomonas aeruginosa LipA, a lipase with a flexible lid domain crucial for substrate binding and turnover, aiming to enhance its hydrolysis of the industrially relevant substrate Roche ester. We generated an initial set of single-point mutations based on structural proximity to the active site and evaluated their effects using a computational pipeline integrating molecular dynamics (MD) simulations, density functional theory (DFT) calculations, and ensemble-based energy scoring. While we identified several active variants, attempts to rank them by activity using structural features, such as hydrogen bond formation or residue flexibility, failed. Deep learning models, applied post hoc for structural analysis via AlphaFold3, produced nearly identical active site geometries across variants, irrespective of activity. Reaction pathway analysis revealed energy barriers varying by 5-15 kcal/mol depending on substrate conformation, with the nucleophile addition step consistently rate-limiting. However, these small energetic shifts, likely critical for incremental activity changes, were indistinguishable by current computational or deep learning methods. Our results highlight the limitations of existing approaches in resolving subtle functional differences and underscore the need for improved benchmarks, reactive force fields, and more sensitive ranking metrics. Advancing these areas will be essential for designing enzymes with gradual, evolution-like activity improvements and for bridging the gap between structural prediction and catalytic function.
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.