Cargando…

Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry

The advent of machine learning‐based structure prediction algorithms such as AlphaFold2 (AF2) and RoseTTa Fold have moved the generation of accurate structural models for the entire cellular protein machinery into the reach of the scientific community. However, structure predictions of protein compl...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Allison, Timothy M., Degiacomi, Matteo T., Marklund, Erik G., Jovine, Luca, Elofsson, Arne, Benesch, Justin L. P., Landreh, Michael
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123603/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35634779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.4333
_version_ 1784711585772601344
author Allison, Timothy M.
Degiacomi, Matteo T.
Marklund, Erik G.
Jovine, Luca
Elofsson, Arne
Benesch, Justin L. P.
Landreh, Michael
author_facet Allison, Timothy M.
Degiacomi, Matteo T.
Marklund, Erik G.
Jovine, Luca
Elofsson, Arne
Benesch, Justin L. P.
Landreh, Michael
author_sort Allison, Timothy M.
collection PubMed
description The advent of machine learning‐based structure prediction algorithms such as AlphaFold2 (AF2) and RoseTTa Fold have moved the generation of accurate structural models for the entire cellular protein machinery into the reach of the scientific community. However, structure predictions of protein complexes are based on user‐provided input and may require experimental validation. Mass spectrometry (MS) is a versatile, time‐effective tool that provides information on post‐translational modifications, ligand interactions, conformational changes, and higher‐order oligomerization. Using three protein systems, we show that native MS experiments can uncover structural features of ligand interactions, homology models, and point mutations that are undetectable by AF2 alone. We conclude that machine learning can be complemented with MS to yield more accurate structural models on a small and large scale.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9123603
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-91236032022-05-24 Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry Allison, Timothy M. Degiacomi, Matteo T. Marklund, Erik G. Jovine, Luca Elofsson, Arne Benesch, Justin L. P. Landreh, Michael Protein Sci For the Record The advent of machine learning‐based structure prediction algorithms such as AlphaFold2 (AF2) and RoseTTa Fold have moved the generation of accurate structural models for the entire cellular protein machinery into the reach of the scientific community. However, structure predictions of protein complexes are based on user‐provided input and may require experimental validation. Mass spectrometry (MS) is a versatile, time‐effective tool that provides information on post‐translational modifications, ligand interactions, conformational changes, and higher‐order oligomerization. Using three protein systems, we show that native MS experiments can uncover structural features of ligand interactions, homology models, and point mutations that are undetectable by AF2 alone. We conclude that machine learning can be complemented with MS to yield more accurate structural models on a small and large scale. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 2022-05-21 2022-06 /pmc/articles/PMC9123603/ /pubmed/35634779 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.4333 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Protein Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of The Protein Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle For the Record
Allison, Timothy M.
Degiacomi, Matteo T.
Marklund, Erik G.
Jovine, Luca
Elofsson, Arne
Benesch, Justin L. P.
Landreh, Michael
Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title_full Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title_fullStr Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title_full_unstemmed Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title_short Complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
title_sort complementing machine learning‐based structure predictions with native mass spectrometry
topic For the Record
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9123603/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35634779
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pro.4333
work_keys_str_mv AT allisontimothym complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT degiacomimatteot complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT marklunderikg complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT jovineluca complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT elofssonarne complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT beneschjustinlp complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry
AT landrehmichael complementingmachinelearningbasedstructurepredictionswithnativemassspectrometry