The coming of age of de novo protein design

Nature

Volumn 537, Issue 7620, 2016, Pages 320-327

  Huang, Po Ssu ^a,b,c   Boyken, Scott E ^a,b   Baker, David ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^c Stanford University   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

PROTEIN; NANOMATERIAL;

ACCURACY ASSESSMENT; AMINO ACID; BIOTECHNOLOGY; DESIGN METHOD; NANOTECHNOLOGY; PROTEIN;

AMINO ACID SEQUENCE; BIOCHEMISTRY; BIOPHYSICS; DE NOVO PROTEIN DESIGN; HYDROGEN BOND; NONHUMAN; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE; PHYSICAL CHEMISTRY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROTEIN ANALYSIS; PROTEIN CONFORMATION; PROTEIN ENGINEERING; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN FUNCTION; PROTEIN STRUCTURE; REVIEW; X RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHY; BIOLOGY; CHEMISTRY; DRUG DESIGN; METABOLISM; PROTEIN STABILITY;

BIOPHYSICS; COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY; DRUG DESIGN; NANOSTRUCTURES; PROTEIN FOLDING; PROTEIN STABILITY; PROTEINS;

EID: 84988443529     PISSN: 00280836     EISSN: 14764687     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nature19946     Document Type: Review

References (85)

1. Firestein, S. How the olfactory system makes sense of scents. Nature 413, 211-218 (2001).
2. Rosenbaum, D. M., Rasmussen, S. G. F. & Kobilka, B. K. The structure and function of G-protein-coupled receptors. Nature 459, 356-363 (2009).
3. Yoshida, M., Muneyuki, E. & Hisabori, T. ATP synthase - a marvellous rotary engine of the cell. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 669-677 (2001).
4. Spudich, J. A. The myosin swinging cross-bridge model. Nature Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2, 387-392 (2001).
5. Dougherty, M. J. & Arnold, F. H. Directed evolution: new parts and optimized function. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 20, 486-491 (2009).
6. Arnold, F. H. The nature of chemical innovation: new enzymes by evolution. Q. Rev. Biophys. 48, 404-410 (2015).
7. Goldsmith, M. & Tawfik, D. S. Directed enzyme evolution: beyond the low-hanging fruit. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 22, 406-412 (2012).
8. Khoury, G. A., Smadbeck, J., Kieslich, C. A. & Floudas, C. A. Protein folding and de novo protein design for biotechnological applications. Trends Biotechnol. 32, 99-109 (2014).
9. Regan, L. et al. Protein design: past, present, and future. Biopolymers 104, 334-350 (2015).
10. Keefe, A. D. & Szostak, J. W. Functional proteins from a random-sequence library. Nature 410, 715-718 (2001).
11. Fisher, M. A., McKinley, K. L., Bradley, L. H., Viola, S. R. & Hecht, M. H. De novo designed proteins from a library of artificial sequences function in Escherichia coli and enable cell growth. PLoS ONE 6, e15364 (2011).
12. Murphy, G. S., Greisman, J. B. & Hecht, M. H. De novo proteins with life-sustaining functions are structurally dynamic. J. Mol. Biol. 428, 399-411 (2016).
13. Epstein, C. J., Goldberger, R. F. & Anfinsen, C. B. The genetic control of tertiary protein structure: studies with model systems. Cold Spring Harb. Simp. Quant. Biol. 28, 439-449 (1963).
14. Leaver-Fay, A. et al. ROSETTA3: an object-oriented software suite for the simulation and design of macromolecules. Methods Enzymol. 487, 545-574 (2011).
15. Wood, C. W. et al. CCBuilder: an interactive web-based tool for building, designing and assessing coiled-coil protein assemblies. Bioinformatics 30, 3029-3035 (2014).
16. Negron, C. & Keating, A. E. Multistate protein design using CLEVER and CLASSY. Methods Enzymol. 523, 171-190 (2013).
17. Smadbeck, J., Peterson, M. B., Khoury, G. A., Taylor, M. S. & Floudas, C. A. Protein WISDOM: a workbench for in silico de novo design of biomolecules. J. Vis. Exp. 77, e50476 (2013).
18. Fleming, P. J. & Rose, G. D. Do all backbone polar groups in proteins form hydrogen bonds? Protein Sci. 14, 1911-1917 (2005).
19. Ponder, J. W. & Richards, F. M. Tertiary templates for proteins: use of packing criteria in the enumeration of allowed sequences for different structural classes. J. Mol. Biol. 193, 775-791 (1987).
20. Dahiyat, B. I. & Mayo, S. L. Protein design automation. Protein Sci. 5, 895-903 (1996).
21. Dahiyat, B. I. & Mayo, S. L. De novo protein design: fully automated sequence selection. Science 278, 82-87 (1997).
22. Kuhlman, B. & Baker, D. Native protein sequences are close to optimal for their structures. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 10383-10388 (2000).
23. Simons, K. T., Kooperberg, C., Huang, E. & Baker, D. Assembly of protein tertiary structures from fragments with similar local sequences using simulated annealing and Bayesian scoring functions. J. Mol. Biol. 268, 209-225 (1997).
24. Balakrishnan, S., Kamisetty, H., Carbonell, J. G., Lee, S.-I. & Langmead, C. J. Learning generative models for protein fold families. Proteins 79, 1061-1078 (2011).
25. Kamisetty, H., Ovchinnikov, S. & Baker, D. Assessing the utility of coevolution-based residue-residue contact predictions in a sequence- and structure-rich era. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 110, 15674-15679 (2013).
26. Ovchinnikov, S., Kamisetty, H. & Baker, D. Robust and accurate prediction of residue-residue interactions across protein interfaces using evolutionary information. eLife 3, e02030 (2014).
27. Ovchinnikov, S. et al. Large-scale determination of previously unsolved protein structures using evolutionary information. eLife 4, e09248 (2015).
28. Kuhlman, B. Design of a novel globular protein fold with atomic-level accuracy. Science 302, 1364-1368 (2003).
29. Huang, P.-S. et al. Rosetta Remodel: a generalized framework for flexible backbone protein design. PLoS ONE 6, e24109 (2011).
30. Harbury, P. B., Plecs, J. J., Tidor, B., Alber, T. & Kim, P. S. High-resolution protein design with backbone freedom. Science 282, 1462-1467 (1998).
31. Thomson, A. R. et al. Computational design of water-soluble α-helical barrels. Science 346, 485-488 (2014).
32. Grigoryan, G. & DeGrado, W. F. Probing designability via a generalized model of helical bundle geometry. J. Mol. Biol. 405, 1079-1100 (2011).
33. Huang, P.-S. et al. High thermodynamic stability of parametrically designed helical bundles. Science 346, 481-485 (2014).
34. 2+-transporting four-helix bundle. Science 346, 1520-1524 (2014).
35. Regan, L. & DeGrado, W. F. Characterization of a helical protein designed from first principles. Science 241, 976-978 (1988).
36. Lin, Y.-R. et al. Control over overall shape and size in de novo designed proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, E5478-E5485 (2015).
37. Koga, N. et al. Principles for designing ideal protein structures. Nature 491, 222-227 (2012).
38. King, I. C. et al. Precise assembly of complex beta sheet topologies from de novo designed building blocks. eLife 4, e11012 (2015).
39. Rämisch, S., Weininger, U., Martinsson, J., Akke, M. & André, I. Computational design of a leucine-rich repeat protein with a predefined geometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 17875-17880 (2014).
40. Park, K. et al. Control of repeat-protein curvature by computational protein design. Nature Struct. Mol. Biol. 22, 167-174 (2015).
41. Doyle, L. et al. Rational design of α-helical tandem repeat proteins with closed architectures. Nature 528, 585-588 (2015).
42. Huang, P.-S. et al. De novo design of a four-fold symmetric TIM-barrel protein with atomic-level accuracy. Nature Chem. Biol. 12, 29-34 (2016).
43. Brunette, T. J. et al. Exploring the repeat protein universe through computational protein design. Nature 528, 580-584 (2015).
44. Jacobs, T. M. et al. Design of structurally distinct proteins using strategies inspired by evolution. Science 352, 687-690 (2016).
45. Murphy, G. S. et al. Increasing sequence diversity with flexible backbone protein design: the complete redesign of a protein hydrophobic core. Structure 20, 1086-1096 (2012).
46. Correia, B. E. et al. Proof of principle for epitope-focused vaccine design. Nature 507, 201-206 (2014).
47. Crick, F. H. C. The packing of α-helices: simple coiled-coils. Acta Cryst. 6, 689-697 (1953).
48. Walsh, S. T., Cheng, H., Bryson, J. W., Roder, H. & DeGrado, W. F. Solution structure and dynamics of a de novo designed three-helix bundle protein. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 96, 5486-5491 (1999).
49. Fletcher, J. M. et al. A basis set of de novo coiled-coil peptide oligomers for rational protein design and synthetic biology. ACS Synth. Biol. 1, 240-250 (2012).
50. Zaccai, N. R. et al. A de novo peptide hexamer with a mutable channel. Nature Chem. Biol. 7, 935-941 (2011).
51. Eisenberg, D. et al. The design, synthesis, and crystallization of an alpha-helical peptide. Proteins 1, 16-22 (1986).
52. Keating, A. E., Malashkevich, V. N., Tidor, B. & Kim, P. S. Side-chain repacking calculations for predicting structures and stabilities of heterodimeric coiled coils. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 14825-14830 (2001).
53. Grigoryan, G. et al. Computational design of virus-like protein assemblies on carbon nanotube surfaces. Science 332, 1071-1076 (2011).
54. Fletcher, J. M. et al. Self-assembling cages from coiled-coil peptide modules. Science 340, 595-599 (2013).
55. Burton, A. J., Thomson, A. R., Dawson, W. M., Brady, R. L. & Woolfson, D. N. Installing hydrolytic activity into a completely de novo protein framework. Nature Chem. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nchem.2555 (2016).
56. Grigoryan, G., Reinke, A. W. & Keating, A. E. Design of protein-interaction specificity gives selective bZIP-binding peptides. Nature 458, 859-864 (2009).
57. Reinke, A. W., Grant, R. A. & Keating, A. E. A synthetic coiled-coil interactome provides heterospecific modules for molecular engineering. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132, 6025-6031 (2010).
58. London, N. & Ambroggio, X. An accurate binding interaction model in de novo computational protein design of interactions: if you build it, they will bind. J. Struct. Biol. 185, 136-146 (2014).
59. Gradišar, H. et al. Design of a single-chain polypeptide tetrahedron assembled from coiled-coil segments. Nature Chem. Biol. 9, 362-366 (2013).
60. Gradišar, H. & Jerala, R. De novo design of orthogonal peptide pairs forming parallel coiled-coil heterodimers. J. Pept. Sci. 17, 100-106 (2011).
61. Schreiber, G. & Keating, A. E. Protein binding specificity versus promiscuity. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 21, 50-61 (2011).
62. Stranges, P. B. & Kuhlman, B. A comparison of successful and failed protein interface designs highlights the challenges of designing buried hydrogen bonds. Protein Sci. 22, 74-82 (2013).
63. Boyken, S. E. et al. De novo design of protein homo-oligomers with modular hydrogen-bond network-mediated specificity. Science 352, 680-687 (2016).
64. Seeman, N. C. DNA in a material world. Nature 421, 427-431 (2003).
65. Linko, V. & Dietz, H. The enabled state of DNA nanotechnology. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 24, 555-561 (2013).
66. Zhang, F., Nangreave, J., Liu, Y. & Yan, H. Structural DNA nanotechnology: state of the art and future perspective. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 136, 11198-11211 (2014).
67. Hilvert, D. Design of protein catalysts. Annu. Rev. Biochem. 82, 447-470 (2013).
68. Kries, H., Blomberg, R. & Hilvert, D. De novo enzymes by computational design. Curr. Opin. Chem. Biol. 17, 221-228 (2013).
69. Kiss, G., Çelebi-Ölçüm, N., Moretti, R., Baker, D. & Houk, K. N. Computational enzyme design. Angew. Chem. Int. Edn Engl. 52, 5700-5725 (2013).
70. Richter, F., Leaver-Fay, A., Khare, S. D., Bjelic, S. & Baker, D. De novo enzyme design using Rosetta3. PLoS ONE 6, e19230 (2011).
71. Baker, D. An exciting but challenging road ahead for computational enzyme design. Protein Sci. 19, 1817-1819 (2010).
72. Kiss, G., Röthlisberger, D., Baker, D. & Houk, K. N. Evaluation and ranking of enzyme designs. Protein Sci. 19, 1760-1773 (2010).
73. Garrabou, X., Wicky, B. I. & Hilvert, D. Fast Knoevenagel condensations catalyzed by an artificial Schiff-base-forming enzyme. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 138, 6972-6974. (2016).
74. Koday, M. T. et al. A computationally designed hemagglutinin stem-binding protein provides in vivo protection from influenza independent of a host immune response. PLoS Pathog. 12, e1005409 (2016).
75. Tinberg, C. E. et al. Computational design of ligand-binding proteins with high affinity and selectivity. Nature 501, 212-216 (2013).
76. Griss, R. et al. Bioluminescent sensor proteins for point-of-care therapeutic drug monitoring. Nature Chem. Biol. 10, 598-603 (2014).
77. Feng, J. et al. A general strategy to construct small molecule biosensors in eukaryotes. eLife 4, e10606 (2015).
78. Mou, Y., Huang, P.-S., Hsu, F.-C., Huang, S.-J. & Mayo, S. L. Computational design and experimental verification of a symmetric protein homodimer. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 10714-10719 (2015).
79. King, N. P. et al. Computational design of self-assembling protein nanomaterials with atomic level accuracy. Science 336, 1171-1174 (2012).
80. King, N. P. et al. Accurate design of co-assembling multi-component protein nanomaterials. Nature 510, 103-108 (2014).
81. Gonen, S., Dimaio, F., Gonen, T. & Baker, D. Design of ordered two-dimensional arrays mediated by noncovalent protein-protein interfaces. Science 348, 1365-1368 (2015).
82. Hsia, Y. et al. Design of a hyperstable 60-subunit protein icosahedron. Nature 535, 136-139 (2016).
83. Bale, J. B. et al. Accurate design of megadalton-scale two-component icosahedral protein complexes. Science 353, 389-394 (2016).
84. Bhardwaj, G., Mulligan, V. K., Bahl, C. D. & Baker, D. Accurate de novo design of hyperstable constrained peptides. Nature http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature19791 (2016).
85. Giger, L. et al. Evolution of a designed retro-aldolase leads to complete active site remodeling. Nature Chem. Biol. 9, 494-498 (2013).