Cargando…
Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding
SUMMARY: Motivation. Predicting the native state of a protein has long been considered a gateway problem for understanding protein folding. Recent advances in structural modeling driven by deep learning have achieved unprecedented success at predicting a protein’s crystal structure, but it is not cl...
Autores principales: | , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Oxford University Press
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8963306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35099504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab881 |
_version_ | 1784677963017486336 |
---|---|
author | Outeiral, Carlos Nissley, Daniel A Deane, Charlotte M |
author_facet | Outeiral, Carlos Nissley, Daniel A Deane, Charlotte M |
author_sort | Outeiral, Carlos |
collection | PubMed |
description | SUMMARY: Motivation. Predicting the native state of a protein has long been considered a gateway problem for understanding protein folding. Recent advances in structural modeling driven by deep learning have achieved unprecedented success at predicting a protein’s crystal structure, but it is not clear if these models are learning the physics of how proteins dynamically fold into their equilibrium structure or are just accurate knowledge-based predictors of the final state. Results. In this work, we compare the pathways generated by state-of-the-art protein structure prediction methods to experimental data about protein folding pathways. The methods considered were AlphaFold 2, RoseTTAFold, trRosetta, RaptorX, DMPfold, EVfold, SAINT2 and Rosetta. We find evidence that their simulated dynamics capture some information about the folding pathway, but their predictive ability is worse than a trivial classifier using sequence-agnostic features like chain length. The folding trajectories produced are also uncorrelated with experimental observables such as intermediate structures and the folding rate constant. These results suggest that recent advances in structure prediction do not yet provide an enhanced understanding of protein folding. Availability. The data underlying this article are available in GitHub at https://github.com/oxpig/structure-vs-folding/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8963306 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Oxford University Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-89633062022-03-29 Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding Outeiral, Carlos Nissley, Daniel A Deane, Charlotte M Bioinformatics Original Papers SUMMARY: Motivation. Predicting the native state of a protein has long been considered a gateway problem for understanding protein folding. Recent advances in structural modeling driven by deep learning have achieved unprecedented success at predicting a protein’s crystal structure, but it is not clear if these models are learning the physics of how proteins dynamically fold into their equilibrium structure or are just accurate knowledge-based predictors of the final state. Results. In this work, we compare the pathways generated by state-of-the-art protein structure prediction methods to experimental data about protein folding pathways. The methods considered were AlphaFold 2, RoseTTAFold, trRosetta, RaptorX, DMPfold, EVfold, SAINT2 and Rosetta. We find evidence that their simulated dynamics capture some information about the folding pathway, but their predictive ability is worse than a trivial classifier using sequence-agnostic features like chain length. The folding trajectories produced are also uncorrelated with experimental observables such as intermediate structures and the folding rate constant. These results suggest that recent advances in structure prediction do not yet provide an enhanced understanding of protein folding. Availability. The data underlying this article are available in GitHub at https://github.com/oxpig/structure-vs-folding/ SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. Oxford University Press 2022-01-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8963306/ /pubmed/35099504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab881 Text en © The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Papers Outeiral, Carlos Nissley, Daniel A Deane, Charlotte M Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title | Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title_full | Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title_fullStr | Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title_full_unstemmed | Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title_short | Current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
title_sort | current structure predictors are not learning the physics of protein folding |
topic | Original Papers |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8963306/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35099504 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/btab881 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT outeiralcarlos currentstructurepredictorsarenotlearningthephysicsofproteinfolding AT nissleydaniela currentstructurepredictorsarenotlearningthephysicsofproteinfolding AT deanecharlottem currentstructurepredictorsarenotlearningthephysicsofproteinfolding |