Figure 4.
Functional scoring and mutational fitness evaluation of ProDualNet. (a) Comparative analysis of positive dual-target sequences using the top-k% selection strategy to assess the model’s ability to predict functionality. (b) Sequence similarity in the GCGR/GLP-1R dual-target test set. (c) Comparison of ProDualNet dual agonist sequence rank scores with AlphaFold3 rank scores. (d) Overall Spearman correlation coefficient evaluation of 65 sets of protein mutation data in the Proteingym stability database, each set containing multiple mutant sequences for a protein. (e) Higher-order mutation evaluation of 65 sets of protein mutation data in the Proteingym stability database. (f) Overall evaluation of 298 sets of protein mutation data in the DMS stability dataset. (g) Affinity evaluation of 11 sets of mutant sequences in the SKEMPI V2 database. (h) Evaluation of the relationship between model-predicted scores and binding free energy for 1,877 single-point mutations and 675 multi-point mutations across 11 proteins.
