Heterogeneity of the GFP fitness landscape and data-driven protein design

  1. Louisa Gonzalez Somermeyer
  2. Aubin Fleiss
  3. Alexander S Mishin
  4. Nina G Bozhanova
  5. Anna A Igolkina
  6. Jens Meiler
  7. Maria-Elisenda Alaball Pujol
  8. Ekaterina V Putintseva
  9. Karen S Sarkisyan  Is a corresponding author
  10. Fyodor A Kondrashov  Is a corresponding author
  1. Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Austria
  2. MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, United Kingdom
  3. Russian Academy of Sciences, Russian Federation
  4. Vanderbilt University, United States
  5. Austrian Academy of Sciences, Austria
  6. LabGenius, United Kingdom

Abstract

Studies of protein fitness landscapes reveal biophysical constraints guiding protein evolution and empower prediction of functional proteins. However, generalisation of these findings is limited due to scarceness of systematic data on fitness landscapes of proteins with a defined evolutionary relationship. We characterized the fitness peaks of four orthologous fluorescent proteins with a broad range of sequence divergence. While two of the four studied fitness peaks were sharp, the other two were considerably flatter, being almost entirely free of epistatic interactions. Mutationally robust proteins, characterized by a flat fitness peak, were not optimal templates for machine-learning-driven protein design - instead, predictions were more accurate for fragile proteins with epistatic landscapes. Our work paves insights for practical application of fitness landscape heterogeneity in protein engineering.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting file and are available on GitHub https://github.com/aequorea238/Orthologous_GFP_Fitness_Peaks

The following data sets were generated

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Louisa Gonzalez Somermeyer

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9139-5383
  2. Aubin Fleiss

    Synthetic Biology Group, MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Alexander S Mishin

    Department of Genetics and Postgenomic Technologies, Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russian Federation
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-4935-7030
  4. Nina G Bozhanova

    Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-2164-5698
  5. Anna A Igolkina

    Gregor Mendel Institute, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Vienna, Austria
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8851-9621
  6. Jens Meiler

    Department of Chemistry, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8945-193X
  7. Maria-Elisenda Alaball Pujol

    Synthetic Biology Group, MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-1868-2674
  8. Ekaterina V Putintseva

    LabGenius, London, United Kingdom
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. Karen S Sarkisyan

    Synthetic Biology Group, MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences, London, United Kingdom
    For correspondence
    karen.s.sarkisyan@gmail.com
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Fyodor A Kondrashov

    Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Klosterneuburg, Austria
    For correspondence
    fyodor.kondrashov@oist.jp
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8243-4694

Funding

European Research Council (771209-CharFL)

  • Fyodor A Kondrashov

MRC London Institute of Medical Sciences (UKRI MC-A658-5QEA0)

  • Karen S Sarkisyan

President's Grant (МК-5405.2021.1.4)

  • Karen S Sarkisyan

Marie Skłodowska-Curie Fellowship (898203)

  • Aubin Fleiss

Russian Science Foundation (19-74-10102)

  • Alexander S Mishin

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Copyright

© 2022, Gonzalez Somermeyer et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 5,928
    views
  • 780
    downloads
  • 45
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Louisa Gonzalez Somermeyer
  2. Aubin Fleiss
  3. Alexander S Mishin
  4. Nina G Bozhanova
  5. Anna A Igolkina
  6. Jens Meiler
  7. Maria-Elisenda Alaball Pujol
  8. Ekaterina V Putintseva
  9. Karen S Sarkisyan
  10. Fyodor A Kondrashov
(2022)
Heterogeneity of the GFP fitness landscape and data-driven protein design
eLife 11:e75842.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75842

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.75842

Further reading

    1. Biochemistry and Chemical Biology
    2. Computational and Systems Biology
    Shinichi Kawaguchi, Xin Xu ... Toshie Kai
    Research Article

    Protein–protein interactions are fundamental to understanding the molecular functions and regulation of proteins. Despite the availability of extensive databases, many interactions remain uncharacterized due to the labor-intensive nature of experimental validation. In this study, we utilized the AlphaFold2 program to predict interactions among proteins localized in the nuage, a germline-specific non-membrane organelle essential for piRNA biogenesis in Drosophila. We screened 20 nuage proteins for 1:1 interactions and predicted dimer structures. Among these, five represented novel interaction candidates. Three pairs, including Spn-E_Squ, were verified by co-immunoprecipitation. Disruption of the salt bridges at the Spn-E_Squ interface confirmed their functional importance, underscoring the predictive model’s accuracy. We extended our analysis to include interactions between three representative nuage components—Vas, Squ, and Tej—and approximately 430 oogenesis-related proteins. Co-immunoprecipitation verified interactions for three pairs: Mei-W68_Squ, CSN3_Squ, and Pka-C1_Tej. Furthermore, we screened the majority of Drosophila proteins (~12,000) for potential interaction with the Piwi protein, a central player in the piRNA pathway, identifying 164 pairs as potential binding partners. This in silico approach not only efficiently identifies potential interaction partners but also significantly bridges the gap by facilitating the integration of bioinformatics and experimental biology.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Brian DePasquale, Carlos D Brody, Jonathan W Pillow
    Research Article Updated

    Accumulating evidence to make decisions is a core cognitive function. Previous studies have tended to estimate accumulation using either neural or behavioral data alone. Here, we develop a unified framework for modeling stimulus-driven behavior and multi-neuron activity simultaneously. We applied our method to choices and neural recordings from three rat brain regions—the posterior parietal cortex (PPC), the frontal orienting fields (FOF), and the anterior-dorsal striatum (ADS)—while subjects performed a pulse-based accumulation task. Each region was best described by a distinct accumulation model, which all differed from the model that best described the animal’s choices. FOF activity was consistent with an accumulator where early evidence was favored while the ADS reflected near perfect accumulation. Neural responses within an accumulation framework unveiled a distinct association between each brain region and choice. Choices were better predicted from all regions using a comprehensive, accumulation-based framework and different brain regions were found to differentially reflect choice-related accumulation signals: FOF and ADS both reflected choice but ADS showed more instances of decision vacillation. Previous studies relating neural data to behaviorally inferred accumulation dynamics have implicitly assumed that individual brain regions reflect the whole-animal level accumulator. Our results suggest that different brain regions represent accumulated evidence in dramatically different ways and that accumulation at the whole-animal level may be constructed from a variety of neural-level accumulators.