Cargando…

Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset

[Image: see text] Engineering proteins to enhance thermal stability is a widely utilized approach for creating industrially relevant biocatalysts. The development of new experimental datasets and computational tools to guide these engineering efforts remains an active area of research. Thus, to comp...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Peishan, Chu, Simon K. S., Frizzo, Henrique N., Connolly, Morgan P., Caster, Ryan W., Siegel, Justin B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: American Chemical Society 2020
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7114132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32258884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b04105
_version_ 1783513820040265728
author Huang, Peishan
Chu, Simon K. S.
Frizzo, Henrique N.
Connolly, Morgan P.
Caster, Ryan W.
Siegel, Justin B.
author_facet Huang, Peishan
Chu, Simon K. S.
Frizzo, Henrique N.
Connolly, Morgan P.
Caster, Ryan W.
Siegel, Justin B.
author_sort Huang, Peishan
collection PubMed
description [Image: see text] Engineering proteins to enhance thermal stability is a widely utilized approach for creating industrially relevant biocatalysts. The development of new experimental datasets and computational tools to guide these engineering efforts remains an active area of research. Thus, to complement the previously reported measures of T(50) and kinetic constants, we are reporting an expansion of our previously published dataset of mutants for β-glucosidase to include both measures of T(M) and ΔΔG. For a set of 51 mutants, we found that T(50) and T(M) are moderately correlated, with a Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman’s rank coefficient of 0.58 and 0.47, respectively, indicating that the two methods capture different physical features. The performance of predicted stability using nine computational tools was also evaluated on the dataset of 51 mutants, none of which are found to be strong predictors of the observed changes in T(50), T(M), or ΔΔG. Furthermore, the ability of the nine algorithms to predict the production of isolatable soluble protein was examined, which revealed that Rosetta ΔΔG, FoldX, DeepDDG, PoPMuSiC, and SDM were capable of predicting if a mutant could be produced and isolated as a soluble protein. These results further highlight the need for new algorithms for predicting modest, yet important, changes in thermal stability as well as a new utility for current algorithms for prescreening designs for the production of mutants that maintain fold and soluble production properties.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7114132
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher American Chemical Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-71141322020-04-03 Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset Huang, Peishan Chu, Simon K. S. Frizzo, Henrique N. Connolly, Morgan P. Caster, Ryan W. Siegel, Justin B. ACS Omega [Image: see text] Engineering proteins to enhance thermal stability is a widely utilized approach for creating industrially relevant biocatalysts. The development of new experimental datasets and computational tools to guide these engineering efforts remains an active area of research. Thus, to complement the previously reported measures of T(50) and kinetic constants, we are reporting an expansion of our previously published dataset of mutants for β-glucosidase to include both measures of T(M) and ΔΔG. For a set of 51 mutants, we found that T(50) and T(M) are moderately correlated, with a Pearson correlation coefficient and Spearman’s rank coefficient of 0.58 and 0.47, respectively, indicating that the two methods capture different physical features. The performance of predicted stability using nine computational tools was also evaluated on the dataset of 51 mutants, none of which are found to be strong predictors of the observed changes in T(50), T(M), or ΔΔG. Furthermore, the ability of the nine algorithms to predict the production of isolatable soluble protein was examined, which revealed that Rosetta ΔΔG, FoldX, DeepDDG, PoPMuSiC, and SDM were capable of predicting if a mutant could be produced and isolated as a soluble protein. These results further highlight the need for new algorithms for predicting modest, yet important, changes in thermal stability as well as a new utility for current algorithms for prescreening designs for the production of mutants that maintain fold and soluble production properties. American Chemical Society 2020-03-20 /pmc/articles/PMC7114132/ /pubmed/32258884 http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b04105 Text en Copyright © 2020 American Chemical Society This is an open access article published under an ACS AuthorChoice License (http://pubs.acs.org/page/policy/authorchoice_termsofuse.html) , which permits copying and redistribution of the article or any adaptations for non-commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Huang, Peishan
Chu, Simon K. S.
Frizzo, Henrique N.
Connolly, Morgan P.
Caster, Ryan W.
Siegel, Justin B.
Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title_full Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title_fullStr Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title_full_unstemmed Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title_short Evaluating Protein Engineering Thermostability Prediction Tools Using an Independently Generated Dataset
title_sort evaluating protein engineering thermostability prediction tools using an independently generated dataset
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7114132/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32258884
http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acsomega.9b04105
work_keys_str_mv AT huangpeishan evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset
AT chusimonks evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset
AT frizzohenriquen evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset
AT connollymorganp evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset
AT casterryanw evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset
AT siegeljustinb evaluatingproteinengineeringthermostabilitypredictiontoolsusinganindependentlygenerateddataset