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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Outeiral, Carlos, Nissley, Daniel A, Deane, Charlotte M
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