Enhancing ML-based binder design with high-throughput screening: a comparison of mRNA and yeast display technologies
Yao, Z.; Metts, J. M.; Huber, A. K.; Li, J.; Kinjo, T.; Dieckhaus, H.; Nallathambi, A.; Bowers, A.; Kuhlman, B.
Show abstract
Recent advances in machine learning (ML)-based protein design methods have enabled the rapid in silico generation of large libraries of miniprotein binders with minimal manual input. While computational design capacity has scaled rapidly, experimental validation methods have lagged, creating a bottleneck in binder discovery pipelines. Here, we apply mRNA display to screen an ML-designed miniprotein binder library and directly compare its performance with the more widely used yeast surface display platform using a single shared DNA library. We screened 2,009 designs targeting the platelet receptor TLT-1 and 3,159 designs targeting the immune receptor B7-H3 across both platforms. While both selection methods reliably identified functional binders, we found that mRNA display preferentially enriched binders with slower dissociation rates. In addition, mRNA display achieved higher library coverage than yeast display, likely rescuing functional designs that are penalized in a cell-based expression system. Biophysical characterization of selected binders from both platforms revealed strong binding affinities and high thermal stabilities. These results showcase the power of integrating ML-based computational design tools with rapid in vitro selection technologies, providing a scalable framework for therapeutic miniprotein discovery. IMPORTANCEMiniprotein binders offer major advantages as next-generation therapeutics, including small size, high stability, and efficient production. In this work, we conduct a side-by-side comparison of mRNA and yeast display as platforms for high-throughput evaluation of de novo miniprotein binders. The binders generated here serve as starting points for therapeutics targeting TLT-1 or B7-H3, two clinically relevant molecules.
Matching journals
The top 10 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.