The K* algorithm provably approximates partition functions for a set of states (e.g., protein, ligand, and protein-ligand complex) to a user-specified accuracy ε. Often, reaching an ε-approximation for a particular set of partition functions takes a prohibitive amount of time and space. To alleviate some of this cost, we introduce two new algorithms into the osprey suite for protein design: fries, a Fast Removal of Inadequately Energied Sequences, and EWAK*, an Energy Window Approximation to K*. fries pre-processes the sequence space to limit a design to only the most stable, energetically favorable sequence possibilities. EWAK* then takes this pruned sequence space as input and, using a user-specified energy window, calculates K* scores using the lowest energy conformations. We expect fries/EWAK* to be most useful in cases where there are many unstable sequences in the design sequence space and when users are satisfied with enumerating the low-energy ensemble of conformations. In combination, these algorithms provably retain calculational accuracy while limiting the input sequence space and the conformations included in each partition function calculation to only the most energetically favorable, effectively reducing runtime while still enriching for desirable sequences. This combined approach led to significant speed-ups compared to the previous state-of-the-art multi-sequence algorithm, BBK*, while maintaining its efficiency and accuracy, which we show across 40 different protein systems and a total of 2,826 protein design problems. Additionally, as a proof of concept, we used these new algorithms to redesign the protein-protein interface (PPI) of the c-Raf-RBD:KRas complex. The Ras-binding domain of the protein kinase c-Raf (c-Raf-RBD) is the tightest known binder of KRas, a protein implicated in difficult-to-treat cancers. fries/EWAK* accurately retrospectively predicted the effect of 41 different sets of mutations in the PPI of the c-Raf-RBD:KRas complex. Notably, these mutations include mutations whose effect had previously been incorrectly predicted using other computational methods. Next, we used fries/EWAK* for prospective design and discovered a novel point mutation that improves binding of c-Raf-RBD to KRas in its active, GTP-bound state (KRasGTP). We combined this new mutation with two previously reported mutations (which were highly-ranked by osprey) to create a new variant of c-Raf-RBD, c-Raf-RBD(RKY). fries/EWAK* in osprey computationally predicted that this new variant binds even more tightly than the previous best-binding variant, c-Raf-RBD(RK). We measured the binding affinity of c-Raf-RBD(RKY) using a bio-layer interferometry (BLI) assay, and found that this new variant exhibits single-digit nanomolar affinity for KRasGTP, confirming the computational predictions made with fries/EWAK*. This new variant binds roughly five times more tightly than the previous best known binder and roughly 36 times more tightly than the design starting point (wild-type c-Raf-RBD). This study steps through the advancement and development of computational protein design by presenting theory, new algorithms, accurate retrospective designs, new prospective designs, and biochemical validation.

Protein design algorithms enumerate a combinatorial number of candidate structures to compute the Global Minimum Energy Conformation (GMEC). To efficiently find the GMEC, protein design algorithms must methodically reduce the conformational search space. By applying distance and energy cutoffs, the protein system to be designed can thus be represented using a sparse residue interaction graph, where the number of interacting residue pairs is less than all pairs of mutable residues, and the corresponding GMEC is called the sparse GMEC. However, ignoring some pairwise residue interactions can lead to a change in the energy, conformation, or sequence of the sparse GMEC vs. the original or the full GMEC. Despite the widespread use of sparse residue interaction graphs in protein design, the above mentioned effects of their use have not been previously analyzed. To analyze the costs and benefits of designing with sparse residue interaction graphs, we computed the GMECs for 136 different protein design problems both with and without distance and energy cutoffs, and compared their energies, conformations, and sequences. Our analysis shows that the differences between the GMECs depend critically on whether or not the design includes core, boundary, or surface residues. Moreover, neglecting long-range interactions can alter local interactions and introduce large sequence differences, both of which can result in significant structural and functional changes. Designs on proteins with experimentally measured thermostability show it is beneficial to compute both the full and the sparse GMEC accurately and efficiently. To this end, we show that a provable, ensemble-based algorithm can efficiently compute both GMECs by enumerating a small number of conformations, usually fewer than 1000. This provides a novel way to combine sparse residue interaction graphs with provable, ensemble-based algorithms to reap the benefits of sparse residue interaction graphs while avoiding their potential inaccuracies.