
protein-qc
by adaptyvbio
Claude Code skills for protein design
SKILL.md
name: protein-qc description: > Quality control metrics and filtering thresholds for protein design. Use this skill when: (1) Evaluating design quality for binding, expression, or structure, (2) Setting filtering thresholds for pLDDT, ipTM, PAE, (3) Checking sequence liabilities (cysteines, deamidation, polybasic clusters), (4) Creating multi-stage filtering pipelines, (5) Computing PyRosetta interface metrics (dG, SC, dSASA), (6) Checking biophysical properties (instability, GRAVY, pI), (7) Ranking designs with composite scoring.
This skill provides research-backed thresholds from binder design competitions and published benchmarks. license: MIT category: evaluation tags: [qc, filtering, metrics, thresholds]
Protein Design Quality Control
Critical Limitation
Individual metrics have weak predictive power for binding. Research shows:
- Individual metric ROC AUC: 0.64-0.66 (slightly better than random)
- Metrics are pre-screening filters, not affinity predictors
- Composite scoring is essential for meaningful ranking
These thresholds filter out poor designs but do NOT predict binding affinity.
QC Organization
QC is organized by purpose and level:
| Purpose | What it assesses | Key metrics |
|---|---|---|
| Binding | Interface quality, binding geometry | ipTM, PAE, SC, dG, dSASA |
| Expression | Manufacturability, solubility | Instability, GRAVY, pI, cysteines |
| Structural | Fold confidence, consistency | pLDDT, pTM, scRMSD |
Each category has two levels:
- Metric-level: Calculated values with thresholds (pLDDT > 0.85)
- Design-level: Pattern/motif detection (odd cysteines, NG sites)
Quick Reference: All Thresholds
| Category | Metric | Standard | Stringent | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Structural | pLDDT | > 0.85 | > 0.90 | AF2/Chai/Boltz |
| pTM | > 0.70 | > 0.80 | AF2/Chai/Boltz | |
| scRMSD | < 2.0 Å | < 1.5 Å | Design vs pred | |
| Binding | ipTM | > 0.50 | > 0.60 | AF2/Chai/Boltz |
| PAE_interaction | < 12 Å | < 10 Å | AF2/Chai/Boltz | |
| Shape Comp (SC) | > 0.50 | > 0.60 | PyRosetta | |
| interface_dG | < -10 | < -15 | PyRosetta | |
| Expression | Instability | < 40 | < 30 | BioPython |
| GRAVY | < 0.4 | < 0.2 | BioPython | |
| ESM2 PLL | > 0.0 | > 0.2 | ESM2 |
Design-Level Checks (Expression)
| Pattern | Risk | Action |
|---|---|---|
| Odd cysteine count | Unpaired disulfides | Redesign |
| NG/NS/NT motifs | Deamidation | Flag/avoid |
| K/R >= 3 consecutive | Proteolysis | Flag |
| >= 6 hydrophobic run | Aggregation | Redesign |
See: references/binding-qc.md, references/expression-qc.md, references/structural-qc.md
Sequential Filtering Pipeline
import pandas as pd
designs = pd.read_csv('designs.csv')
# Stage 1: Structural confidence
designs = designs[designs['pLDDT'] > 0.85]
# Stage 2: Self-consistency
designs = designs[designs['scRMSD'] < 2.0]
# Stage 3: Binding quality
designs = designs[(designs['ipTM'] > 0.5) & (designs['PAE_interaction'] < 10)]
# Stage 4: Sequence plausibility
designs = designs[designs['esm2_pll_normalized'] > 0.0]
# Stage 5: Expression checks (design-level)
designs = designs[designs['cysteine_count'] % 2 == 0] # Even cysteines
designs = designs[designs['instability_index'] < 40]
Composite Scoring (Required for Ranking)
Individual metrics alone are too weak. Use composite scoring:
def composite_score(row):
return (
0.30 * row['pLDDT'] +
0.20 * row['ipTM'] +
0.20 * (1 - row['PAE_interaction'] / 20) +
0.15 * row['shape_complementarity'] +
0.15 * row['esm2_pll_normalized']
)
designs['score'] = designs.apply(composite_score, axis=1)
top_designs = designs.nlargest(100, 'score')
For advanced composite scoring, see references/composite-scoring.md.
Tool-Specific Filtering
BindCraft Filter Levels
| Level | Use Case | Stringency |
|---|---|---|
| Default | Standard design | Most stringent |
| Relaxed | Need more designs | Higher failure rate |
| Peptide | Designs < 30 AA | ~5-10x lower success |
BoltzGen Filtering
boltzgen run ... \
--budget 60 \
--alpha 0.01 \
--filter_biased true \
--refolding_rmsd_threshold 2.0 \
--additional_filters 'ALA_fraction<0.3'
alpha=0.0: Quality-only rankingalpha=0.01: Default (slight diversity)alpha=1.0: Diversity-only
Design-Level Severity Scoring
For pattern-based checks, use severity scoring:
| Severity Level | Score | Action |
|---|---|---|
| LOW | 0-15 | Proceed |
| MODERATE | 16-35 | Review flagged issues |
| HIGH | 36-60 | Redesign recommended |
| CRITICAL | 61+ | Redesign required |
Experimental Correlation
| Metric | AUC | Use |
|---|---|---|
| ipTM | ~0.64 | Pre-screening |
| PAE | ~0.65 | Pre-screening |
| ESM2 PLL | ~0.72 | Best single metric |
| Composite | ~0.75+ | Always use |
Key insight: Metrics work as filters (eliminating failures) not predictors (ranking successes).
Campaign Health Assessment
Quick assessment of your design campaign:
| Pass Rate | Status | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| > 15% | Excellent | Above average, proceed |
| 10-15% | Good | Normal, proceed |
| 5-10% | Marginal | Below average, review issues |
| < 5% | Poor | Significant problems, diagnose |
Failure Recovery Trees
Too Few Pass pLDDT Filter (< 5% with pLDDT > 0.85)
Low pLDDT across campaign
├── Check scRMSD distribution
│ ├── High scRMSD (>2.5Å): Backbone issue
│ │ └── Fix: Regenerate backbones with lower noise_scale (0.5-0.8)
│ └── Low scRMSD but low pLDDT: Disordered regions
│ └── Fix: Check design length, simplify topology
├── Try more sequences per backbone
│ └── modal run modal_proteinmpnn.py --num-seq-per-target 32 --sampling-temp 0.1
├── Use SolubleMPNN instead of ProteinMPNN
│ └── Better for expression-optimized sequences
└── Consider different design tool
└── BindCraft (integrated design) may work better
Too Few Pass ipTM Filter (< 5% with ipTM > 0.5)
Low ipTM across campaign
├── Review hotspot selection
│ ├── Are hotspots surface-exposed? (SASA > 20Ų)
│ ├── Are hotspots conserved? (check MSA)
│ └── Try 3-6 different hotspot combinations
├── Increase binder length (more contact area)
│ └── Try 80-100 AA instead of 60-80 AA
├── Check interface geometry
│ ├── Is target flat? → Try helical binders
│ └── Is target concave? → Try smaller binders
└── Try all-atom design tool
└── BoltzGen (all-atom, better packing)
High scRMSD (> 50% with scRMSD > 2.0Å)
Sequences don't specify intended structure
├── ProteinMPNN issue
│ ├── Lower temperature: --sampling-temp 0.1
│ ├── Increase sequences: --num-seq-per-target 32
│ └── Check fixed_positions aren't over-constraining
├── Backbone geometry issue
│ ├── Backbones may be unusual/strained
│ ├── Regenerate with lower noise_scale (0.5-0.8)
│ └── Reduce diffuser.T to 30-40
└── Try different sequence design
└── ColabDesign (AF2 gradient-based) may work better
Everything Passes But No Experimental Hits
In silico metrics don't predict affinity
├── Generate MORE designs (10x current)
│ └── Computational metrics have high false positive rate
├── Increase diversity
│ ├── Higher ProteinMPNN temperature (0.2-0.3)
│ ├── Different backbone topologies
│ └── Different hotspot combinations
├── Try different design approach
│ ├── BindCraft (different algorithm)
│ ├── ColabDesign (AF2 hallucination)
│ └── BoltzGen (all-atom diffusion)
└── Check if target is druggable
└── Some targets are inherently difficult
Too Many Designs Pass (> 50%)
Suspiciously high pass rate
├── Check if thresholds are too lenient
│ └── Use stringent thresholds: pLDDT > 0.90, ipTM > 0.60
├── Verify prediction quality
│ ├── Are predictions actually running? Check output files
│ └── Are complexes being predicted, not just monomers?
├── Check for data issues
│ ├── Same sequence being predicted multiple times?
│ └── Wrong FASTA format (missing chain separator)?
└── Apply diversity filter
└── Cluster at 70% identity, take top per cluster
Diagnostic Commands
Quick Campaign Assessment
import pandas as pd
df = pd.read_csv('designs.csv')
# Pass rates at each stage
print(f"Total designs: {len(df)}")
print(f"pLDDT > 0.85: {(df['pLDDT'] > 0.85).mean():.1%}")
print(f"ipTM > 0.50: {(df['ipTM'] > 0.50).mean():.1%}")
print(f"scRMSD < 2.0: {(df['scRMSD'] < 2.0).mean():.1%}")
print(f"All filters: {((df['pLDDT'] > 0.85) & (df['ipTM'] > 0.5) & (df['scRMSD'] < 2.0)).mean():.1%}")
# Identify top issue
if (df['pLDDT'] > 0.85).mean() < 0.1:
print("ISSUE: Low pLDDT - check backbone or sequence quality")
elif (df['ipTM'] > 0.50).mean() < 0.1:
print("ISSUE: Low ipTM - check hotspots or interface geometry")
elif (df['scRMSD'] < 2.0).mean() < 0.5:
print("ISSUE: High scRMSD - sequences don't specify backbone")
Score
Total Score
Based on repository quality metrics
SKILL.mdファイルが含まれている
ライセンスが設定されている
100文字以上の説明がある
GitHub Stars 100以上
1ヶ月以内に更新
10回以上フォークされている
オープンIssueが50未満
プログラミング言語が設定されている
1つ以上のタグが設定されている
Reviews
Reviews coming soon
