No abstract

We present osprey 3.0, a new and greatly improved release of the osprey protein design software. osprey 3.0 features a convenient new Python interface, which greatly improves its ease of use. It is over two orders of magnitude faster than previous versions of osprey when running the same algorithms on the same hardware. Moreover, osprey 3.0 includes several new algorithms, which introduce substantial speedups as well as improved biophysical modeling. It also includes GPU support, which provides an additional speedup of over an order of magnitude. Like previous versions of osprey, osprey 3.0 offers a unique package of advantages over other design software, including provable design algorithms that account for continuous flexibility during design and model conformational entropy. Finally, we show here empirically that osprey 3.0 accurately predicts the effect of mutations on protein-protein binding. osprey 3.0 is available at http://www.cs.duke.edu/donaldlab/osprey.php as free and open-source software.

Computational structure-based protein design programs are becoming an increasingly important tool in molecular biology. These programs compute protein sequences that are predicted to fold to a target structure and perform a desired function. The success of a program's predictions largely relies on two components: (i) the input biophysical model, and (ii) the algorithm that computes the best sequence(s) and structure(s) according to the biophysical model. Improving both the model and the algorithm in tandem is essential to improving the success rate of current programs, and here we review recent developments in algorithms for protein design, emphasizing how novel algorithms enable the use of more accurate biophysical models. We conclude with a list of algorithmic challenges in computational protein design that we believe will be especially important for the design of therapeutic proteins and protein assemblies. Graphical Abstract*

Single-cell RNA sequencing (scRNA-seq) of tissues has revealed remarkable heterogeneity of cell types and states but does not provide information on the spatial organization of cells. To better understand how individual cells function within an anatomical space, we developed XYZeq, a workflow that encodes spatial metadata into scRNA-seq libraries. We used XYZeq to profile mouse tumor models to capture spatially barcoded transcriptomes from tens of thousands of cells. Analyses of these data revealed the spatial distribution of distinct cell types and a cell migration-associated transcriptomic program in tumor-associated mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs). Furthermore, we identify localized expression of tumor suppressor genes by MSCs that vary with proximity to the tumor core. We demonstrate that XYZeq can be used to map the transcriptome and spatial localization of individual cells in situ to reveal how cell composition and cell states can be affected by location within complex pathological tissue.

Predictive modelling of protein properties has become increasingly important to the field of machine-learning guided protein engineering. In one of the two existing approaches, evolutionarily-related sequences to a query protein drive the modelling process, without any property measurements from the laboratory. In the other, a set of protein variants of interest are assayed, and then a supervised regression model is estimated with the assay-labelled data. Although a handful of recent methods have shown promise in combining the evolutionary and supervised approaches, this hybrid problem has not been examined in depth, leaving it unclear how practitioners should proceed, and how method developers should build on existing work. Herein, we present a systematic assessment of methods for protein fitness prediction when evolutionary and assay-labelled data are available. We find that a simple baseline approach we introduce is competitive with and often outperforms more sophisticated methods. Moreover, our simple baseline is plug-and-play with a wide variety of established methods, and does not add any substantial computational burden. Our analysis highlights the importance of systematic evaluations and sufficient baselines.