Literature DB >> 36191185

Dissecting the stability determinants of a challenging de novo protein fold using massively parallel design and experimentation.

Tae-Eun Kim1,2,3, Kotaro Tsuboyama2,3,4, Scott Houliston5,6,7, Cydney M Martell1,2,3,8, Claire M Phoumyvong1,2,3, Alexander Lemak6,7, Hugh K Haddox9,10, Cheryl H Arrowsmith5,6,7, Gabriel J Rocklin2,3,8,11.   

Abstract

Designing entirely new protein structures remains challenging because we do not fully understand the biophysical determinants of folding stability. Yet, some protein folds are easier to design than others. Previous work identified the 43-residue ɑββɑ fold as especially challenging: The best designs had only a 2% success rate, compared to 39 to 87% success for other simple folds [G. J. Rocklin et al., Science 357, 168-175 (2017)]. This suggested the ɑββɑ fold would be a useful model system for gaining a deeper understanding of folding stability determinants and for testing new protein design methods. Here, we designed over 10,000 new ɑββɑ proteins and found over 3,000 of them to fold into stable structures using a high-throughput protease-based assay. NMR, hydrogen-deuterium exchange, circular dichroism, deep mutational scanning, and scrambled sequence control experiments indicated that our stable designs fold into their designed ɑββɑ structures with exceptional stability for their small size. Our large dataset enabled us to quantify the influence of universal stability determinants including nonpolar burial, helix capping, and buried unsatisfied polar atoms, as well as stability determinants unique to the ɑββɑ topology. Our work demonstrates how large-scale design and test cycles can solve challenging design problems while illuminating the biophysical determinants of folding.

Entities:  

Keywords:  protein design; protein engineering; protein folding

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2022        PMID: 36191185      PMCID: PMC9564214          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2122676119

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   12.779


  50 in total

1.  The solution structure of bacteriophage lambda protein W, a small morphogenetic protein possessing a novel fold.

Authors:  K L Maxwell; A A Yee; V Booth; C H Arrowsmith; M Gold; A R Davidson
Journal:  J Mol Biol       Date:  2001-04-20       Impact factor: 5.469

2.  Protein conformational stabilities can be determined from hydrogen exchange rates.

Authors:  B M Huyghues-Despointes; J M Scholtz; C N Pace
Journal:  Nat Struct Biol       Date:  1999-10

3.  Computational Modeling of Protein Stability: Quantitative Analysis Reveals Solutions to Pervasive Problems.

Authors:  Aron Broom; Kyle Trainor; Zachary Jacobi; Elizabeth M Meiering
Journal:  Structure       Date:  2020-05-05       Impact factor: 5.006

4.  Measurement of electrostatic interactions in protein folding with the use of protein charge ladders.

Authors:  Russell S Negin; Jeffrey D Carbeck
Journal:  J Am Chem Soc       Date:  2002-03-27       Impact factor: 15.419

5.  Perturbing the energy landscape for improved packing during computational protein design.

Authors:  Jack B Maguire; Hugh K Haddox; Devin Strickland; Samer F Halabiya; Brian Coventry; Jermel R Griffin; Surya V S R K Pulavarti; Matthew Cummins; David F Thieker; Eric Klavins; Thomas Szyperski; Frank DiMaio; David Baker; Brian Kuhlman
Journal:  Proteins       Date:  2020-12-11

6.  RosettaRemodel: a generalized framework for flexible backbone protein design.

Authors:  Po-Ssu Huang; Yih-En Andrew Ban; Florian Richter; Ingemar Andre; Robert Vernon; William R Schief; David Baker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-08-31       Impact factor: 3.240

7.  Principles for designing ideal protein structures.

Authors:  Nobuyasu Koga; Rie Tatsumi-Koga; Gaohua Liu; Rong Xiao; Thomas B Acton; Gaetano T Montelione; David Baker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2012-11-08       Impact factor: 49.962

8.  The de novo design of a biocompatible and functional integral membrane protein using minimal sequence complexity.

Authors:  Christophe J Lalaurie; Virginie Dufour; Anna Meletiou; Sarah Ratcliffe; Abigail Harland; Olivia Wilson; Chiratchaya Vamasiri; Deborah K Shoemark; Christopher Williams; Christopher J Arthur; Richard B Sessions; Matthew P Crump; J L Ross Anderson; Paul Curnow
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2018-10-01       Impact factor: 4.379

9.  De novo design of a fluorescence-activating β-barrel.

Authors:  Jiayi Dou; Anastassia A Vorobieva; William Sheffler; Lindsey A Doyle; Hahnbeom Park; Matthew J Bick; Binchen Mao; Glenna W Foight; Min Yen Lee; Lauren A Gagnon; Lauren Carter; Banumathi Sankaran; Sergey Ovchinnikov; Enrique Marcos; Po-Ssu Huang; Joshua C Vaughan; Barry L Stoddard; David Baker
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2018-09-12       Impact factor: 49.962

10.  Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold.

Authors:  John Jumper; Richard Evans; Alexander Pritzel; Tim Green; Michael Figurnov; Olaf Ronneberger; Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool; Russ Bates; Augustin Žídek; Anna Potapenko; Alex Bridgland; Clemens Meyer; Simon A A Kohl; Andrew J Ballard; Andrew Cowie; Bernardino Romera-Paredes; Stanislav Nikolov; Rishub Jain; Demis Hassabis; Jonas Adler; Trevor Back; Stig Petersen; David Reiman; Ellen Clancy; Michal Zielinski; Martin Steinegger; Michalina Pacholska; Tamas Berghammer; Sebastian Bodenstein; David Silver; Oriol Vinyals; Andrew W Senior; Koray Kavukcuoglu; Pushmeet Kohli
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2021-07-15       Impact factor: 49.962

View more
  1 in total

1.  Dissecting the stability determinants of a challenging de novo protein fold using massively parallel design and experimentation.

Authors:  Tae-Eun Kim; Kotaro Tsuboyama; Scott Houliston; Cydney M Martell; Claire M Phoumyvong; Alexander Lemak; Hugh K Haddox; Cheryl H Arrowsmith; Gabriel J Rocklin
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2022-10-03       Impact factor: 12.779

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.