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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |