Search

Significance Almost all proteins fold to their lowest free energy state, which is determined by their amino acid sequence. Computational protein design has primarily focused on finding sequences that have very low energy in the target designed structure. However, what is most relevant during folding is not the absolute energy of the folded state but the energy difference between the folded state and the lowest-lying alternative states. We describe a deep learning approach that captures aspects of the folding landscape, in particular the presence of structures in alternative energy minima, and show that it can enhance current protein design methods., The protein design problem is to identify an amino acid sequence that folds to a desired structure. Given Anfinsen’s thermodynamic hypothesis of folding, this can be recast as finding an amino acid sequence for which the desired structure is the lowest energy state. As this calculation involves not only all possible amino acid sequences but also, all possible structures, most current approaches focus instead on the more tractable problem of finding the lowest-energy amino acid sequence for the desired structure, often checking by protein structure prediction in a second step that the desired structure is indeed the lowest-energy conformation for the designed sequence, and typically discarding a large fraction of designed sequences for which this is not the case. Here, we show that by backpropagating gradients through the transform-restrained Rosetta (trRosetta) structure prediction network from the desired structure to the input amino acid sequence, we can directly optimize over all possible amino acid sequences and all possible structures in a single calculation. We find that trRosetta calculations, which consider the full conformational landscape, can be more effective than Rosetta single-point energy estimations in predicting folding and stability of de novo designed proteins. We compare sequence design by conformational landscape optimization with the standard energy-based sequence design methodology in Rosetta and show that the former can result in energy landscapes with fewer alternative energy minima. We show further that more funneled energy landscapes can be designed by combining the strengths of the two approaches: the low-resolution trRosetta model serves to disfavor alternative states, and the high-resolution Rosetta model serves to create a deep energy minimum at the design target structure.

The protein design problem is to identify an amino acid sequence which folds to a desired structure. Given Anfinsen’s thermodynamic hypothesis of folding, this can be recast as finding an amino acid sequence for which the lowest energy conformation is that structure. As this calculation involves not only all possible amino acid sequences but also all possible structures, most current approaches focus instead on the more tractable problem of finding the lowest energy amino acid sequence for the desired structure, often checking by protein structure prediction in a second step that the desired structure is indeed the lowest energy conformation for the designed sequence, and discarding the in many cases large fraction of designed sequences for which this is not the case. Here we show that by backpropagating gradients through the trRosetta structure prediction network from the desired structure to the input amino acid sequence, we can directly optimize over all possible amino acid sequences and all possible structures, and in one calculation explicitly design amino acid sequences predicted to fold into the desired structure and not any other. We find that trRosetta calculations, which consider the full conformational landscape, can be more effective than Rosetta single point energy estimations in predicting folding and stability of de novo designed proteins. We compare sequence design by landscape optimization to the standard fixed backbone sequence design methodology in Rosetta, and show that the results of the former, but not the latter, are sensitive to the presence of competing low-lying states. We show further that more funneled energy landscapes can be designed by combining the strengths of the two approaches: the low resolution trRosetta model serves to disfavor alternative states, and the high resolution Rosetta model, to create a deep energy minimum at the design target structure.SignificanceComputational protein design has primarily focused on finding sequences which have very low energy in the target designed structure. However, what is most relevant during folding is not the absolute energy of the folded state, but the energy difference between the folded state and the lowest lying alternative states. We describe a deep learning approach which captures the entire folding landscape, and show that it can enhance current protein design methods.

The computer game Foldit is currently widely used as a biology and biochemistry teaching aid. Herein, we introduce a new feature of Foldit called "custom contests" that allows educators to create puzzles that fit their curriculum. The effectiveness of the custom contests is demonstrated by the use of five distinct custom contests in an upper-level biochemistry class. The new custom contest feature can be implemented in classes ranging from middle school to graduate school to enable educators to best complement their current curriculum. © 2019 International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, 47(2): 133-139, 2019.

The Rosetta software for macromolecular modeling, docking and design is extensively used in laboratories worldwide. During two decades of development by a community of laboratories at more than 60 institutions, Rosetta has been continuously refactored and extended. Its advantages are its performance and interoperability between broad modeling capabilities. Here we review tools developed in the last 5 years, including over 80 methods. We discuss improvements to the score function, user interfaces and usability. Rosetta is available at ., This Perspective reviews tools developed over the past five years in the macromolecular modeling, docking and design software Rosetta.

Every two years groups worldwide participate in the Critical Assessment of Protein Structure Prediction (CASP) experiment to blindly test the strengths and weaknesses of their computational methods. CASP has significantly advanced the field but many hurdles still remain, which may require new ideas and collaborations. In 2012 a web-based effort called WeFold, was initiated to promote collaboration within the CASP community and attract researchers from other fields to contribute new ideas to CASP. Members of the WeFold coopetition (cooperation and competition) participated in CASP as individual teams, but also shared components of their methods to create hybrid pipelines and actively contributed to this effort. We assert that the scale and diversity of integrative prediction pipelines could not have been achieved by any individual lab or even by any collaboration among a few partners. The models contributed by the participating groups and generated by the pipelines are publicly available at the WeFold website providing a wealth of data that remains to be tapped. Here, we analyze the results of the 2014 and 2016 pipelines showing improvements according to the CASP assessment as well as areas that require further adjustments and research. Funding Agencies|Office of Science of the U.S. Department of Energy [DE-AC02-05CH11231]; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) under the Science Undergraduate Laboratory Internship (SULI) program; U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Workforce Development for Teachers and Scientists (WDTS) under the Visiting Faculty Program (VFP); United States-Israel Binational Science Foundation (BSF) [2009432]; Israel Science Foundation (ISF) [1122/14]; National Institute of General Medical Sciences [R01GM093123, GM083107, GM116960]; Purdue University start-up funds; Ralph W. and Grace M. Showalter Trust Award; Jim and Diann Robbers Cancer Research Grant for New Investigators Award; Brazilian agency: FAPESP; Brazilian agency: CAPES; Brazilian agency: CNPq; NIH [GM-14312]; NSF [MCB-10-19767]; National Institutes of Medicine [GM11574901]; Swedish Research Council [2012-5270, 2016-05369]; Swedish e-Science Research Center; Polish National Science Center [UMO-2013/10/M/ST4/00640]; IISc Mathematical Initiative Assistantship; National Academy of Sciences, India; National Institutes of Health [R01-GM100701, R01GM052032]; National Science Foundation; National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship [DGE-1148900]; Princeton Institute for Computational Science and Engineering (PICSciE); Princeton University Office of Information Technology; UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council [EP/M020576/1, EP/N031962/1]; National Research Foundation of Korea [2016R1A2A1A05005485]