Ancestral Protein Resurrection: A Comprehensive Guide to Laboratory Protocols and Biomedical Applications

Abstract

This article provides a complete methodological guide for ancestral protein resurrection, a powerful technique that combines computational phylogenetics with experimental biochemistry to reconstruct and characterize ancient proteins. Aimed at researchers, scientists, and drug development professionals, it covers the entire workflow from foundational principles and step-by-step laboratory protocols to advanced troubleshooting and validation strategies. The content explores how resurrected ancestral proteins serve as unique tools for understanding molecular evolution, engineering stable enzyme variants, and developing novel therapeutic scaffolds, with direct applications in biomedical research and drug discovery.

The Principles and Power of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) represents a powerful convergence of evolutionary biology and molecular biochemistry, enabling researchers to infer the sequences of ancient proteins and resurrect them in the laboratory for functional characterization. The field originated from the seminal work of Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl in 1963, who first proposed that comparing sequences of modern proteins within an evolutionary framework could mathematically infer ancestral sequences [1] [2] [3]. They envisioned this approach as the foundation for a new field they termed "Paleobiochemistry" [2]. Despite this groundbreaking insight, the technology and data required to implement their vision remained insufficient for several decades. The first successful examples of ancestral protein resurrection did not emerge until the 1990s, as sequence data accumulated in growing genetic databases [3]. Since then, advances in computational algorithms, statistical models, and gene synthesis technologies have transformed ASR into a robust tool for studying protein evolution, enabling resurrection of proteins dating back billions of years [1] [2] [4].

The core principle underlying ASR is that closely related species share similar DNA and protein sequences due to common descent [2]. By analyzing these relationships through phylogenetic trees, researchers can extrapolate backward to infer ancestral states. ASR does not claim to recreate the exact historical sequence that existed in ancient organisms, but rather produces a sequence that likely represents the functional characteristics of the ancestral protein, fitting within the "neutral network" model of protein evolution where multiple genotypically different but phenotypically similar sequences can coexist in a population [2]. This approach has revealed fundamental insights into evolutionary processes, ancient environments, and the structural determinants of protein function.

Methodological Evolution: From Conceptual Framework to Practical Implementation

The ASR Workflow: A Step-by-Step Protocol

Modern ASR methodology follows a standardized four-step workflow that operationalizes Pauling and Zuckerkandl's original concept [1] [3]:

• Step 1: Sequence Collection and Curation - Researchers first define a protein of interest and collect homologous sequences from diverse organisms using public databases. Careful selection of sequences that adequately represent the phylogenetic diversity of the protein family is crucial for accurate reconstruction.

• Step 2: Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) - The collected sequences are aligned to establish positional homology, determining which sites descended from a common ancestral position. Alignment accuracy significantly impacts reconstruction quality, with tools like MAFFT and PRANK generally performing well [3].

• Step 3: Phylogenetic Tree Construction - The MSA information is used to infer evolutionary relationships between sequences, constructing a phylogenetic tree that represents the branching process of diversification. Both maximum likelihood and Bayesian methods are commonly employed for this step.

• Step 4: Ancestral Sequence Inference - Sequences at ancestral nodes are extrapolated backward along the inferred tree using statistical models. The marginal probability method is frequently used, calculating for each site at each ancestral node the relative probability of all possible ancestral states given the tree and MSA [1].

Computational Methods and Algorithmic Advances

The statistical approaches for ancestral inference have evolved significantly, with three primary methods in use:

• Maximum Parsimony (MP) - The earliest method used for ASR, MP infers the ancestral sequence that requires the minimum number of evolutionary changes to explain modern sequences [3]. While conceptually simple, it relies on an oversimplified evolutionary model and is rarely used in contemporary studies.

• Maximum Likelihood (ML) - Currently the most widely used approach, ML determines ancestral states that maximize the posterior probability at each position given an explicit substitution model [1] [2] [3]. ML methods use substitution matrices (e.g., the LG matrix) that encode probabilities of different amino acid transitions based on known protein sequences [1].

• Bayesian Methods - These approaches view ancestral reconstruction as a posterior probability distribution rather than a single "best estimate," explicitly accounting for uncertainty in trees, branch lengths, and substitution models through sampling [3] [5]. While computationally intensive, Bayesian methods can reduce biases toward overestimating protein stability that may occur with ML approaches [5].

The following workflow diagram illustrates the complete ASR process from sequence collection to protein characterization:

Key Software Tools for ASR Implementation

Table 1: Essential Software Tools for Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Software Tool	Methodology	Key Features	Applications
PAML (Phylogenetic Analysis by Maximum Likelihood)	Maximum Likelihood	Implements codon and amino acid substitution models; includes CODEML for ancestral reconstruction	Widely used for ML-based ASR studies [3]
MEGA11	Maximum Likelihood, Maximum Parsimony	User-friendly interface with comprehensive molecular evolution tools	Suitable for beginners and educational purposes [3]
HyPhy	Maximum Likelihood	Flexible platform for pattern-oriented analysis of genetic sequences	Detecting selection and evolutionary analysis [3]
RevBayes	Bayesian Inference	Modular platform for phylogenetic analysis using probabilistic graphical models	Incorporating uncertainty in ancestral reconstruction [3]
GRASP	Multiple Methods	Comprehensive framework for ancestral sequence reconstruction	Integrating various reconstruction approaches [3]

Experimental Applications and Case Studies

Case Study 1: Investigating Ancient Environmental Conditions

ASR has provided unique insights into ancient habitats by characterizing resurrected ancestral proteins under different environmental conditions. A 2024 study reconstructed ancestral nucleoside diphosphate kinases (NDKs) and ribosomal proteins uS8s to investigate the pH of primordial environments [6]. The research followed this experimental protocol:

• Protein Resurrection Protocol:

  • Gene Synthesis: Designed and synthesized genes encoding ancestral NDKs and uS8s based on computationally reconstructed sequences
  • Protein Expression: Expressed recombinant proteins in E. coli expression systems
  • Purification: Purified proteins using affinity and size-exclusion chromatography
  • Thermal Stability Assay: Measured thermal unfolding using circular dichroism spectroscopy by monitoring ellipticity at 222 nm as a function of temperature
  • pH Titration: Conducted unfolding experiments at pH values of 5.0, 7.0, and 9.0 to determine pH-dependent stability profiles

• Key Findings: The reconstructed ancestral proteins displayed thermal stability profiles more similar to extant proteins from alkaliphilic bacteria than those from acidophilic or neutralophilic microorganisms, suggesting that common ancestors of bacterial and archaeal species thrived in alkaline environments [6].

Case Study 2: Engineering Novel Protein Functions

ASR has emerged as a powerful protein engineering strategy, enabling the generation of novel enzymes with optimized properties. A compelling application involved the resurrection of Precambrian β-lactamase enzymes that were subsequently engineered to catalyze Kemp elimination, an anthropogenic reaction not found in nature [4]. The experimental approach included:

• Laboratory Protocol:

  • Ancestral Reconstruction: Computationally resurrected β-lactamase sequences dating back billions of years
  • Active Site Engineering: Introduced catalytic residues for Kemp eliminase activity into the ancestral scaffolds
  • Functional Screening: Expressed and purified variant proteins, measuring Kemp eliminase activity spectrophotometrically
  • Computational Design: Applied FuncLib, an evolutionary analysis-based design tool, to optimize catalytic efficiency
  • Dynamics Analysis: Used molecular dynamics simulations and spectroscopic methods to characterize conformational flexibility

• Results: The ancient β-lactamase scaffolds demonstrated proficient Kemp eliminase activity when engineered with the new active site, while modern counterparts showed no activity. This functional difference was attributed to enhanced conformational flexibility in the ancestral proteins, which facilitated the emergence of new catalytic functions [4].

Case Study 3: Structural Biology of Complex Systems

ASR has recently been applied to facilitate structural analysis of challenging multi-domain proteins. A 2025 study on modular polyketide synthases (PKSs) demonstrated how ASR could enable high-resolution structural determination [7]. The methodology included:

• Experimental Workflow:

  • Chimeric Protein Design: Replaced the native acyltransferase (AT) domain in the FD-891 PKS loading module with a reconstructed ancestral AT (AncAT) domain
  • Functional Validation: Confirmed that the KSQAncAT chimeric didomain retained enzymatic function comparable to the native protein
  • Crystallization: Successfully determined high-resolution crystal structure of the KSQAncAT chimeric didomain
  • Cryo-EM Analysis: Solved cryo-EM structures of the KSQ-ACP complex that were previously unattainable with the native protein

• Significance: This approach demonstrated that ASR can generate stabilized protein variants that reduce conformational heterogeneity, enabling structural elucidation of complex multi-domain proteins that are otherwise refractory to high-resolution structural analysis [7].

Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of ASR requires specialized reagents and materials throughout the computational and experimental workflow:

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Ancestral Protein Resurrection

Category	Specific Reagents/Materials	Function/Application
Computational Tools	PAML, MEGA11, HyPhy software licenses	Phylogenetic analysis and ancestral sequence inference
Gene Synthesis	Custom DNA synthesis services	Generation of ancestral gene sequences for laboratory expression
Expression Systems	E. coli expression strains (BL21, Rosetta), cell culture media	Heterologous expression of ancestral proteins
Purification Materials	Affinity chromatography resins (Ni-NTA, Glutathione Sepharose), size exclusion columns, imidazole, reducing agents	Purification of recombinant ancestral proteins
Characterization Reagents	Circular dichroism spectroscopy buffers, fluorescent dyes (SYPRO Orange), substrate analogs	Biophysical and functional characterization of resurrected proteins
Stabilization Additives	Glycerol, various salts, protease inhibitor cocktails	Maintaining protein stability during experimental analyses

Technical Considerations and Methodological Validation

Addressing Reconstruction Accuracy and Bias

A critical consideration in ASR is the accuracy of reconstructed sequences and potential systematic biases. Computational studies using simulated protein evolution have revealed that:

• Maximum Likelihood and Maximum Parsimony methods may overestimate thermostability of ancestral proteins, potentially because they eliminate slightly detrimental variants that are less frequent in modern sequences [5].
• Bayesian methods that sample from the posterior probability distribution tend to produce smaller and less biased errors in estimated stability [5].
• Ambiguity in Reconstruction occurs when no clear substitution can be predicted at a position. Standard practice involves generating multiple ASR sequences encompassing most ambiguities and comparing their properties to ensure robustness [2].

The phylogenetic tree topology and sequence alignment quality significantly impact reconstruction accuracy. While uncertainty in phylogenetic trees has relatively minor effects on ASR robustness [3], careful selection of alignment methods and evolutionary models is essential. Model selection studies indicate that the best-fitting substitution model yields the most accurate reconstructions [3].

Experimental Validation Strategies

Robust ASR studies incorporate multiple validation approaches:

• Alternate Reconstruction Methods: Comparing results from different computational approaches (e.g., ML vs. Bayesian) helps identify method-dependent artifacts [2].
• Consensus Sequences: Expressing consensus sequences alongside ancestral reconstructions distinguishes true ancestral characteristics from potential biases introduced by ML methods that may converge on stabilized consensus-like sequences [2].
• Comprehensive Biophysical Characterization: Measuring multiple protein properties (thermostability, catalytic efficiency, oligomeric state, structural dynamics) provides orthogonal validation of functional inferences [1] [4].

The following diagram illustrates the key considerations for ensuring reconstruction accuracy:

The journey from Pauling and Zuckerkandl's theoretical proposal to contemporary ASR laboratory protocols represents a remarkable synthesis of evolutionary theory, computational biology, and experimental biochemistry. Modern ASR has matured into a robust methodology that not only provides insights into fundamental evolutionary processes but also offers practical applications in protein engineering and drug development. The unique properties of resurrected ancestral proteins—including enhanced thermostability, conformational flexibility, and catalytic promiscuity—make them particularly valuable scaffolds for engineering novel functions [1] [4].

Future advancements in ASR will likely focus on refining evolutionary models, incorporating structural constraints into reconstruction algorithms, and developing more sophisticated experimental frameworks for characterizing ancestral proteins in cellular contexts. As sequence databases continue to expand and computational methods become increasingly sophisticated, ASR promises to yield ever-deeper insights into protein evolution while generating uniquely valuable biocatalysts and therapeutic proteins with applications across biotechnology and medicine. The continued integration of ASR with structural biology techniques, as demonstrated in recent cryo-EM studies [7], particularly highlights the growing potential of this approach to overcome long-standing challenges in molecular biology.

A protein's sequence encodes its conformational energy landscape, which determines the ensemble of structures it can adopt and, ultimately, its biological function [1]. The evolution of new protein functions is therefore fundamentally linked to how mutations alter this underlying energy landscape [1]. This landscape can be visualized as a funnel, where a wide top represents a high-energy, unfolded state, and the narrow bottom represents the low-energy, native folded state [8]. Evolution navigates this landscape, with amino acid substitutions tuning the relative stabilities of different conformations to create new functional properties [1].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) has emerged as a powerful tool for studying this process. ASR uses phylogenetic models on modern protein sequences to infer the sequences of ancient proteins, which can then be synthesized and characterized in the laboratory [1] [9]. This approach provides a unique window into historical evolutionary events, allowing researchers to identify key mutations and correlate them with changes in energy landscapes and the emergence of novel functions such as new enzymatic activities, altered binding specificity, or changed oligomeric states [1].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction: Methodology and Workflow

The process of ASR follows a structured, multi-stage workflow, from sequence collection to the experimental characterization of resurrected proteins.

Theoretical and Computational Protocol

The core computational protocol for ASR consists of four main steps [1]:

• Step 1: Sequence Collection. Define a protein family of interest and collect a diverse set of homologous sequences from public databases.
• Step 2: Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA). Align the collected sequences to establish homology, ensuring that compared positions share a common evolutionary origin.
• Step 3: Phylogenetic Tree Construction. Use the MSA to infer the evolutionary relationships between sequences, resulting in a bifurcating tree.
• Step 4: Ancestral Sequence Inference. Extrapolate backwards along the inferred tree to calculate the most probable sequences at ancestral nodes, typically using the marginal probability method.

The underlying statistical models assume that sequences evolve by a branching process, with sites evolving independently according to probabilities defined by an amino acid substitution matrix (e.g., the LG matrix) [1]. The result is a set of probabilistic ancestral sequences, often with posterior probabilities assigned to each reconstructed residue.

ASR Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the complete Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction workflow, from initial bioinformatics to experimental characterization:

Successful ASR relies on a suite of bioinformatic and experimental resources. The table below details key reagents and their functions in a typical ASR study.

Table 1: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ASR Studies

Resource Category	Specific Tool / Resource	Function in ASR Workflow
Sequence Databases	UniProtKB, InterPro [10]	Provides comprehensive, annotated protein sequences for homology searching and family classification.
MSA & Tree Building	Software (e.g., MAFFT, IQ-TREE) [1]	Constructs multiple sequence alignments and infers maximum likelihood phylogenetic trees.
Ancestral Reconstruction	Phylogenetics Software (e.g., HyPhy, PAML) [1]	Implements statistical models (e.g., marginal probability) to infer ancestral sequences.
Gene Synthesis	Commercial gene synthesis services	Materializes inferred ancestral sequences into DNA for laboratory expression.
Structure Prediction	AlphaFold, DeepSCFold [11]	Predicts 3D structures of resurrected ancestral proteins to form hypotheses about mechanism.

Experimental Characterization of Resurrected Ancestors

Once ancestral proteins are resurrected, their biochemical and biophysical properties must be rigorously characterized to understand how their energy landscapes evolved.

Protocol for Characterizing Energy Landscapes

This protocol outlines key experiments for profiling the stability, dynamics, and function of resurrected ancestral proteins.

• Objective: To quantitatively compare the thermodynamic stability, conformational dynamics, and functional properties of resurrected ancestral proteins and their modern counterparts.
• Materials:
  • Purified ancestral and modern variant proteins.
  • Buffers for spectroscopic assays (e.g., CD, fluorescence).
  • Chemical denaturants (e.g., Guanidine HCl, Urea).
  • Relevant enzyme substrates or receptor ligands, if applicable.
• Procedure:
  • Thermal Stability Assay:
    • Prepare a solution of 0.2 - 0.5 mg/mL protein in a suitable buffer.
    • Using a circular dichroism (CD) spectropolarimeter or differential scanning calorimeter (DSC), monitor the signal at a wavelength sensitive to secondary structure (e.g., 222 nm for CD) while ramping the temperature from 10°C to 90°C at a rate of 1°C/min.
    • Plot the signal versus temperature and fit the data to a sigmoidal curve to determine the melting temperature (Tm).
  • Chemical Denaturation:
    • Prepare a series of protein samples (e.g., 2 µM) in buffers containing a gradient of chemical denaturant (e.g., 0 - 8 M Urea).
    • Allow the samples to equilibrate overnight.
    • Measure the intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence emission spectrum (e.g., excite at 280 nm, record emission from 300-400 nm) for each sample.
    • Plot the fluorescence intensity or wavelength maximum against denaturant concentration and fit to a two-state unfolding model to determine the free energy of folding (ΔG°).
  • Functional Promiscuity Screening:
    • Assay the ancestral and modern proteins against a panel of potential substrates or ligands.
    • For enzymes, use spectrophotometric or fluorometric assays to measure initial reaction rates (V0) for each substrate.
    • Determine the catalytic efficiency (kcat/Km) for each substrate to create a functional profile.
• Data Analysis:
  • Compare the Tm and ΔG° values of ancestral and modern proteins. A higher Tm or ΔG° indicates greater stability [9].
  • Analyze the functional screen data to determine if ancestral proteins show a broader substrate range (promiscuity) compared to modern specialists [9].

Key Findings from Characterized Ancestral Proteins

Experimental studies on resurrected proteins have revealed several common trends, which are summarized in the table below.

Table 2: Experimentally Observed Properties of Resurrected Ancestral Proteins

Protein Family	Key Experimental Findings	Implications for Energy Landscape
Various Precambrian Enzymes	Significant enhancement of thermodynamic stability (higher Tm and ΔG°) [9].	A more rugged funnel with a deeper global minimum, potentially reflecting ancestral adaptation to a hotter environment.
β-lactamases, Esterases	Broader substrate promiscuity compared to modern descendants [9].	A flatter, more flexible landscape near the native state, allowing access to more conformational sub-states.
Mamba Aminergic Toxins	Identification of key substitutions that modulate receptor specificity (e.g., AncTx1: α1A-AR selective; AncTx5: potent α2-AR inhibitor) [12].	Mutations fine-tune the landscape to stabilize specific functional conformations for high-affinity binding.
GFP-like Proteins	Altered photoconversion pathways and spectral properties linked to historical hinge migrations [1].	Mutations alter the energy barriers between conformational states, enabling new photophysical functions.

Applications and Advanced Modeling

Biotechnological and Protein Engineering Applications

The unique properties of ancestral proteins, particularly their stability and promiscuity, make them attractive starting points for protein engineering [9]. ASR can efficiently generate small but functionally diverse libraries that are enriched in stable, functional variants compared to random mutagenesis [12]. Successful applications include:

• Developing Biosensors: Engineering of an ancestrally reconstructed arginine biosensor with improved robustness and sensitivity [9].
• Creating Therapeutic Candidates: Resurrection of ancestral toxins to generate highly selective inhibitors of human adrenoceptors, which have potential as research tools or therapeutic leads [12].
• Improving Biocatalysts: Using REAP (Reconstructing Evolutionary Adaptive Paths) to engineer Taq polymerases with novel properties [12].

Computational Navigation of Protein Landscapes

Recent advances in machine learning are providing powerful new tools for modeling and predicting protein energy landscapes. Machine-learned coarse-grained (CG) models are a particularly promising development [13]. These models are trained on large datasets of all-atom molecular dynamics simulations and can predict metastable states, fluctuations of disordered proteins, and relative folding free energies of mutants, while being orders of magnitude faster than all-atom simulations [13]. This enables the extrapolative simulation of new protein sequences, effectively allowing in silico exploration of evolutionary trajectories.

Furthermore, methods like DeepSCFold are improving the prediction of protein complex structures by leveraging sequence-derived structural complementarity, which is crucial for understanding how interactions evolve within a energy landscape framework [11].

Application Notes

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) has evolved from a theoretical concept into a powerful, versatile tool that bridges deep evolutionary history with cutting-edge biotechnology. By inferring the sequences of ancient proteins, researchers can now explore fundamental questions about molecular evolution while simultaneously engineering proteins with enhanced properties for modern applications. The technique's power lies in its ability to resurrect ancient biomolecules, providing a direct window into evolutionary processes that shaped modern protein functions and stability [1].

The foundational principle of ASR is that a protein's sequence determines its conformational energy landscape, which in turn governs its function. Understanding the evolution of new protein functions therefore requires understanding how historical mutations altered this energy landscape over time. ASR provides a unique window into these processes by allowing researchers to characterize the properties of ancient proteins and identify the specific substitutions that led to functional changes [1].

Key Research Applications in Modern Science

Table 1: Key Application Areas of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Application Area	Specific Use-Case	Research Impact
Structural Biology	Enabling high-resolution structure determination of challenging proteins [7]	Provides deeper mechanistic insight into modular polyketide synthases (PKS); enables cryo-EM single-particle analysis where native proteins fail
Protein Engineering	Creating stabilized enzyme variants and chimeric proteins [7]	Generates proteins with enhanced thermal stability, solubility, and broader substrate selectivity for industrial and therapeutic use
Evolutionary Biophysics	Dissecting the evolution of protein energy landscapes [1]	Reveals how historical mutations altered conformational landscapes to enable new functions like altered enzyme activity, binding specificity, and oligomerization
Molecular Evolution Studies	Testing hypotheses about early protein evolution [14]	Challenges long-standing assumptions about foundational protein motifs and provides insight into the complexity of early protein evolution
Drug Discovery	Developing ancestral biotin ligases for proximity labeling [1]	Creates research tools like AirID for proximal biotinylation, enabling study of protein interactions and cellular localization

Experimental Protocols

Core ASR Workflow for Protein Resurrection

The standard ASR workflow involves four critical steps that transform contemporary sequence data into experimentally testable ancestral proteins [1]:

• Sequence Collection and Curation: Identify and collect homologous protein sequences from diverse organisms relevant to the protein family of interest. Comprehensive sampling across evolutionary distances strengthens phylogenetic inference.
• Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA): Construct a high-quality alignment defining homologous sites across all sequences. This alignment forms the foundation for all subsequent evolutionary inferences.
• Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction: Use the MSA to infer evolutionary relationships among sequences, typically employing maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods with appropriate substitution models (e.g., LG matrix).
• Ancestral Sequence Inference: Reconstruct sequences at specific ancestral nodes using statistical approaches like marginal reconstruction, which calculates the most probable amino acid at each site given the tree, alignment, and substitution model.

Protocol 1: ASR-Facilitated Structural Analysis of Modular Polyketide Synthases

This protocol details the use of ASR to determine high-resolution structures of protein complexes that are recalcitrant to structural analysis in their native forms, as demonstrated with the FD-891 PKS loading module [7].

Experimental Workflow:

• Target Identification: Select a target protein system with structural flexibility that has hampered previous crystallization or cryo-EM efforts. In the model study, the native GfsA ATL domain showed high B-factors, indicating flexibility [7].
• Ancestral Domain Design: Perform ASR on specific problematic domains. Replace the flexible native domain (e.g., ATL domain) with a reconstructed ancestral domain (AncAT) to create a chimeric protein (e.g., KSQAncAT) [7].
• Functional Validation: Confirm that the chimeric protein retains enzymatic activity comparable to the native protein using relevant biochemical assays before proceeding to structural studies [7].
• Crystallization and Data Collection: Employ standard crystallization screens for the stabilized chimera. The ancestral domain often improves crystal quality, enabling high-resolution X-ray diffraction data collection [7].
• Cryo-EM Grid Preparation and Imaging: For cryo-EM analysis, prepare grids of the complex (e.g., KSQ-ACP complex) and collect data using standard single-particle analysis protocols. The ASR-stabilized construct reduces conformational heterogeneity, facilitating high-resolution reconstruction [7].

Key Technical Considerations:

• This approach is particularly valuable for multi-domain proteins where dynamic properties create conformational variability.
• The method can be applied to partial regions of targeted multi-domain proteins, serving as a framework for investigating various complex systems.

Protocol 2: Dissecting the Evolution of Protein Complex Assembly

This protocol utilizes ASR to trace the evolutionary pathway by which simple homomeric proteins evolved into specific heterocomplexes, revealing fundamental principles of protein-protein interactions and assembly [1].

Experimental Workflow:

• Ancestral Node Selection: Identify key ancestral nodes for reconstruction, specifically the most recent ancestor that lacked the complex feature (ancPreX) and the oldest ancestor that possessed it (ancPostX) [1].
• Protein Resurrection and Characterization: Express and purify the reconstructed ancestral proteins. Characterize their oligomeric states and assembly properties using size-exclusion chromatography, analytical ultracentrifugation, and/or crosslinking.
• Identifying Key Mutations: Systematically introduce historical mutations from the ancPreX to ancPostX branch into the ancPreX background to identify the minimal set required for the new assembly property.
• Mechanistic Dissection: Use biophysical methods (X-ray crystallography, NMR, etc.) to determine how the identified mutations alter the energy landscape to enable new interactions, often through "knob-and-hole" complementarity mechanisms [1].

Key Technical Considerations:

• This approach efficiently identifies residues critical for specific assembly features that might be obscured in modern complexes.
• ASR establishes a natural hierarchy of protein features where earlier-evolved properties both enable and constrain later evolutionary innovations.

Workflow Visualization

ASR for Structural Biology

Core ASR Methodology

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Materials for ASR Experiments

Reagent/Material	Function/Purpose	Examples/Notes
Sequence Databases	Source of homologous sequences for phylogenetic analysis	Public databases (e.g., GenBank, UniProt) with diverse taxonomic representation
Phylogenetic Software	Statistical inference of evolutionary trees and ancestral sequences	Packages implementing maximum likelihood (e.g., RAxML, IQ-TREE) or Bayesian methods (e.g., MrBayes)
Gene Synthesis Services	Production of codon-optimized ancestral genes for expression	Critical when ancestral sequences differ significantly from modern counterparts
Expression Vectors & Hosts	Production of recombinant ancestral proteins	Typically E. coli systems with appropriate promoters (e.g., T7, lac) for soluble protein expression
Chromatography Systems	Purification of ancestral proteins for functional and structural studies	Affinity (e.g., His-tag), ion exchange, and size-exclusion chromatography
Crystallization Screens	Initial conditions for growing protein crystals of ancestral variants	Commercial sparse matrix screens (e.g., Hampton Research)
Cryo-EM Infrastructure	High-resolution structure determination of large complexes	Requires access to transmission electron microscopes and grid preparation facilities
Stabilization Agents	Enhancing protein stability during storage and analysis	Glycerol, additives, and optimized buffer conditions for ancestral proteins
Activity Assay Reagents	Functional validation of resurrected ancestral proteins	Substrate analogs, cofactors, and detection systems specific to protein function
Relcovaptan-d6	Relcovaptan-d6|Stable Isotope (unlabeled)	Relcovaptan-d6 is a deuterated, selective V1a vasopressin receptor antagonist for research. For Research Use Only. Not for human or veterinary use.
rac-Pregabalin-d4	rac-Pregabalin-d4, MF:C₈H₁₃D₄NO₂, MW:163.25	Chemical Reagent

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) is a powerful phylogenetic method for inferring the sequences of ancient proteins, enabling the study of molecular evolution and the engineering of proteins with enhanced stability and novel functions [7]. This computational and experimental approach allows researchers to formulate and test hypotheses about the historical evolution of modern proteins. The resulting "resurrected" ancestral proteins provide a unique resource for structural biology, enzymology, and drug development, often exhibiting characteristics such as higher thermal stability and increased solubility compared to their contemporary counterparts [7] [15]. This application note provides a detailed protocol for the complete ASR workflow, from initial sequence collection to the final biochemical characterization of resurrected ancestral proteins, framed within the context of ancestral protein resurrection laboratory research.

The ASR Workflow: A Step-by-Step Protocol

The following sections outline the standard ASR protocol, with specific examples from recent research included to illustrate key steps and considerations.

Sequence Collection and Multiple Sequence Alignment

Objective: To gather a comprehensive and diverse set of homologous sequences and generate a high-quality multiple sequence alignment (MSA).

Protocol:

• Identify Homologs: Use the target protein's FASTA sequence as a query in BLAST or similar tools against non-redundant sequence databases (e.g., UniProt) [15]. Retain sequences typically within 30–90% sequence identity to the target to ensure diversity while maintaining reliable alignments.
• Apply Filters: Filter the resulting sequences by length, retaining those within 80–120% of the target protein's length to avoid misalignment from large insertions or deletions [15].
• Reduce Redundancy: Cluster the filtered sequences at a high identity threshold (e.g., 90%) using tools like USEARCH and randomly select one sequence per cluster to reduce bias from over-represented lineages [15].
• Construct MSA: Perform the multiple sequence alignment using specialized programs such as PROMALS3D, ClustalOmega, or MAFFT, which model evolutionary relationships and structural information [15] [16].
• Curate the Alignment: Manually inspect and refine the MSA using software like Geneious to assess and improve alignment accuracy, particularly in regions surrounding active sites or conserved motifs [16].

Example from Literature: In a study on the GfsA loading module of a modular polyketide synthase, researchers constructed a phylogenetic tree from homologous sequences to infer an ancestral AT domain (AncAT), which was subsequently used to facilitate structural analysis [7].

Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction

Objective: To infer the evolutionary relationships among the homologous sequences, which provides the scaffold for ancestral reconstruction.

Protocol:

• Select Evolutionary Model: Use model testing software like Prottest or ModelTest to determine the best-fit model of protein evolution (e.g., LG, WAG, JTT) based on statistical criteria such as the Akaike Information Criterion (AICc) [16].
• Build the Tree: Employ maximum-likelihood algorithms implemented in IQ-TREE or RAxML to reconstruct the phylogenetic tree [15] [16]. These programs use hill-climbing and stochastic perturbation methods for accuracy.
• Assess Branch Support: Perform bootstrapping (e.g., 1000 replicates) to evaluate the statistical confidence of the tree topology [16].
• Root the Tree: Root the phylogenetic tree using an appropriate method, such as the minimum ancestral deviation algorithm or by including a well-defined outgroup [15].

Ancestral Sequence Inference

Objective: To compute the most probable amino acid sequences at specific ancestral nodes of interest on the phylogenetic tree.

Protocol:

• Choose Reconstruction Method: Use maximum likelihood-based tools such as FastML, PAML (codeml module), or Lazarus for the inference [15] [16].
• Set Reconstruction Parameters:
  • Use a codon-based reconstruction model if possible, as it can offer greater accuracy [16].
  • Provide the maximum likelihood tree as a guide.
  • Optimize branch lengths and set the gamma distribution for rate heterogeneity.
  • Perform a joint reconstruction to generate posterior probabilities for each ancestral sequence [15].
• Extract Sequences: Identify the main evolutionary path from the root node to the target sequence and extract the sequences of the ancestral nodes for further analysis [15].

Example from Literature: The Successor Sequence Predictor (SSP) method extends this principle by using linear regression on physicochemical properties of ancestral sequences to predict future evolutionary steps, demonstrating the predictive application of ASR [15].

Gene Synthesis and Protein Expression

Objective: To move from in silico predictions to in vitro study by producing the ancestral protein.

Protocol:

• Sequence Optimization and Synthesis: Codon-optimize the inferred ancestral DNA sequence for expression in the desired host system (e.g., E. coli) and synthesize the gene [16].
• Cloning: Clone the synthesized gene into an appropriate expression vector (e.g., pET11a for bacterial expression), potentially adding affinity tags like a C-terminal His₆-tag to facilitate purification [16].
• Protein Expression and Purification: Express the recombinant protein in the host system and purify it using standard chromatographic techniques, such as immobilized metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) for His-tagged proteins [16].

Example from Literature: In a study on caspases, ancestral sequences were codon-optimized for E. coli, cloned into a pET11a vector with a C-terminal His₆-tag, and the proteins were purified using established protocols [16].

Biochemical and Structural Characterization

Objective: To functionally validate the resurrected ancestral protein and understand its structural properties.

Protocol:

• Functional Assays: Perform enzymatic or functional assays specific to the protein family to confirm activity and measure key kinetic parameters (e.g., kcat, KM). For example, ancestral EF-G proteins were characterized for their GTPase activity and translocation fidelity [17].
• Stability Analysis: Assess thermostability by measuring the melting temperature (Tm) using differential scanning fluorimetry (DSF) or circular dichroism (CD).
• Structural Analysis: Determine high-resolution structures using X-ray crystallography or cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM). Ancestral proteins often exhibit enhanced stability, which can facilitate crystallization [7].

Example from Literature: The structural analysis of a chimeric KSQAncAT protein, where a native AT domain was replaced by an ancestrally reconstructed one, enabled the determination of a high-resolution crystal structure that was challenging to obtain with the modern protein, highlighting ASR's utility in structural biology [7].

The following workflow diagram integrates these major steps into a cohesive visual guide.

Key Data and Reagents for ASR Experiments

Successful implementation of ASR requires careful planning of both computational resources and laboratory reagents. The following tables summarize the core components.

Table 1: Essential Computational Tools for ASR

Tool Category	Specific Software / Algorithm	Key Function in ASR Workflow
Sequence Homology Search	BLAST [15], HMMER	Identifies homologous sequences from databases.
Multiple Sequence Alignment	ClustalOmega [15], PROMALS3D [16], MAFFT	Aligns homologous sequences for phylogenetic analysis.
Phylogenetic Tree Building	IQ-TREE [16], RAxML [15]	Reconstructs evolutionary relationships using maximum likelihood.
Ancestral Sequence Inference	FastML [16], PAML (codeml), Lazarus [15]	Calculates the most probable ancestral sequences at tree nodes.
Structural Alignment & Analysis	SARST2 [18], Foldseek [18]	Rapidly compares and aligns protein structures against large databases.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ancestral Protein Resurrection

Reagent / Material	Function in ASR Protocol	Example & Notes
Cloning Vector	Host for synthesized ancestral gene; enables protein expression.	pET11a vector for bacterial expression [16].
Affinity Tag	Facilitates purification of the expressed recombinant protein.	C-terminal His₆-tag for immobilised metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) [16].
Expression Host	Cellular system for producing the ancestral protein.	Escherichia coli (E. coli) strains (e.g., BL21).
Chromatography Resin	Purifies the protein based on specific properties.	Ni-NTA resin for purifying His-tagged proteins.
Crystallization Kits	Screens conditions for growing protein crystals for structural studies.	Commercial sparse matrix screens.

The ASR workflow provides a robust and systematic framework for probing protein evolution and engineering highly functional proteins. The integration of sophisticated computational tools with standard molecular biology and biochemical techniques allows researchers to travel back in evolutionary time to resurrect and characterize ancient proteins. As demonstrated by recent studies on polyketide synthases, caspases, and elongation factors, the application of ASR can lead to fundamental mechanistic insights and provide unique molecular tools for structural biology and biotechnology [7] [16] [17]. By following the detailed protocols and utilizing the key reagents outlined in this application note, researchers can reliably incorporate ASR into their investigations on protein structure, function, and evolution.

A Step-by-Step Guide to Resurrecting Ancient Proteins in the Laboratory

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) is a computational and experimental technique for inferring the sequences of ancient proteins from the sequences of their modern descendants. Within the context of a laboratory protocol for ancestral protein resurrection, ASR provides the foundational gene sequences that are subsequently synthesized, expressed, and characterized in the lab. This protocol details the computational workflow for phylogenetic tree inference and ancestral sequence reconstruction, which serves as the critical first step in the protein resurrection pipeline. The resurrected ancestral proteins often exhibit unique biotechnological properties, such as enhanced stability and altered interaction patterns, making them valuable for drug development and industrial applications [19] [9].

Methodological Framework

The computational protocol is divided into two primary phases: (1) the inference of a robust phylogenetic tree and (2) the reconstruction of ancestral sequences at the nodes of this tree.

Phylogenetic Tree Inference

A reliable phylogeny is the cornerstone of accurate ASR. The following steps outline the general workflow.

2.1.1. Sequence Alignment and Input The process begins with a curated multiple sequence alignment. For closely related sequences with low divergence, such as specific β-lactamase clusters, coding DNA sequences rather than protein sequences may be used as input to capture all available evolutionary signal [20].

2.1.2. Tree Building Methods Different phylogenetic inference methods can be employed, often depending on the dataset and research question.

• Bayesian Inference: Implemented in tools like MrBayes, this method uses Metropolis-coupled Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) to sample trees from the posterior probability distribution. For example, a run might consist of six independent chains for 30 million generations, with a 50% burn-in [20].
• Maximum Likelihood: Implemented in tools like GARLi (Genetic Algorithm for Rapid Likelihood inference), this method searches for the tree topology and branch lengths that maximize the probability of observing the alignment data under a specific substitution model [20].

2.1.3. Model Selection A critical step is selecting an appropriate model of sequence evolution. A common and widely used model is the Generalized Time Reversible (GTR) model with Gamma-distributed rate variation (G) and a proportion of invariant sites (I). The alignment can be partitioned by codon position to allow for different evolutionary rates at first, second, and third codon positions [20].

2.1.4. Rooting the Tree Phylogenetic trees are typically rooted using an outgroup, which is a sequence or group of sequences known to be closely related but outside the clade of interest. For instance, SHV-1 coding DNA sequences can be used as an outgroup for the TEM β-lactamase cluster [20].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Once a reliable phylogeny is established, ancestral states can be inferred at its nodes.

2.2.1. Reconstruction Algorithm Ancestral sequences are typically inferred by maximum likelihood using the same nucleotide or amino acid substitution model employed for phylogeny reconstruction. The result is a probabilistic reconstruction of the most likely sequence at each internal node of the tree [20] [21].

2.2.2. Robustness and Model Misspecification Recent research indicates that ASR is generally robust to unincorporated evolutionary heterogeneity. The primary determinant of accuracy is strong phylogenetic signal, which is best achieved by using densely sampled alignments, rather than increasingly complex evolutionary models. For most nodes, reconstructions are nearly identical whether using simple homogeneous models or complex heterogeneous models derived from deep mutational scanning data [21].

2.2.3. From Nucleotide to Protein Inferred coding DNA sequences at the internal nodes are translated into protein sequences. These ancestral protein sequences, along with their phylogenetic trees, form the final output of the computational protocol and serve as the direct input for the laboratory phase of gene synthesis and protein expression [20].

Experimental Applications and Outcomes

The following table summarizes key experimental outcomes from published studies that utilized ASR, demonstrating its utility in protein engineering.

Table 1: Biotechnological Applications of Ancestral Protein Resurrection

Ancestral Protein	Key Properties and Improvements	Experimental Validation	Source
Mammalian Coagulation Factor VIII (Anc-FVIII)	• 9-14 fold higher protein expression than human FVIII• Reduced inhibition by anti-drug antibodies (>75% reduction in some cases)• Improved biosynthesis in gene therapy vectors	In vitro activity assays; thrombin generation assays; inhibition assays with patient plasma; in vivo studies in hemophilia A mice [19]
Mamba Aminergic Toxins (AncTx1 & AncTx5)	• AncTx1: Most selective known peptide for α1A-adrenoceptor• AncTx5: Most potent known inhibitor of α2 adrenoceptor subtypes	Receptor binding affinity and selectivity assays across a panel of bioaminergic receptors [12]
Precambrian β-lactamases	• Hyperstability (Tm >30°C higher than modern counterparts)• Substrate promiscuity	Biochemical assays of thermal stability and enzymatic activity against various substrates [9] [22]

Research Reagent Solutions

The table below lists essential computational and experimental reagents for implementing this protocol.

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Tools for ASR and Validation

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Specific Example / Note
MrBayes	Software for Bayesian phylogenetic inference.	Used for TEM β-lactamase phylogeny with MCMC runs of 30 million generations [20].
GARLi	Software for maximum likelihood phylogenetic inference.	Used for CTX-M-3 and OXA-51-like phylogenies [20].
GTR+G+I Model	A standard nucleotide substitution model.	Accounts for different substitution rates, rate variation across sites, and invariant sites [20].
Codon-Optimized cDNA	Synthetic gene for protein expression.	Ancestral FVIII cDNAs were codon-optimized for human cells and synthesized de novo [19].
Solid-Phase Peptide Synthesis	Chemical synthesis of peptide toxins.	Used to synthesize ancestral mamba aminergic toxins (AncTx) for pharmacological profiling [12].

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram illustrates the complete integrated computational and experimental workflow for ancestral protein resurrection, from sequence collection to functional characterization.

Figure 1. Integrated ASR and Protein Resurrection Workflow. The process begins with the collection of modern sequences, proceeds through computational phylogenetic analysis and ancestral sequence inference, and culminates in the laboratory synthesis, expression, and functional characterization of the resurrected ancestral protein.

Technical Notes

• Model Selection: While the GTR+G+I model is a robust default for nucleotide data, model selection should be justified using statistical criteria for each specific dataset.
• Convergence Diagnostics: In Bayesian analyses, ensure MCMC runs have converged by checking that the average standard deviation of split frequencies is sufficiently low (e.g., < 0.01) and using other diagnostic tools within software packages [20].
• Algorithm Choice: The choice between Bayesian and Maximum Likelihood methods for phylogeny often involves a trade-off between computational intensity and the desired output (e.g., a distribution of trees vs. a single best tree).

Gene Synthesis and Molecular Cloning Strategies for Ancestral Sequences

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) has emerged as a powerful methodology for probing the deep evolutionary history of proteins and enzymes. This approach leverages the rapidly expanding amounts of sequence information available in genome databases to infer the sequences of ancestral proteins, which are then "resurrected" in the laboratory for functional and structural characterization [23]. ASR provides a unique window into the complex and intricate relationship between protein structure and function, offering insights not easily attainable by other methods. Within the broader context of ancestral protein resurrection research, the synthesis of these inferred ancestral gene sequences and their subsequent cloning into appropriate expression vectors represents the critical foundational step upon which all downstream experimental work depends.

Recent advancements have demonstrated that proteins reconstructed through ASR often exhibit enhanced stability, solubility, and functional promiscuity compared to their contemporary counterparts, making them particularly valuable for structural biology efforts that have traditionally been hampered by protein instability [7]. For instance, a 2025 study published in Nature Communications successfully utilized ASR to replace a native acyltransferase (AT) domain with an ancestral AT (AncAT) in a modular polyketide synthase, enabling high-resolution crystal structure determination that had proven elusive with the native protein [7]. This case exemplifies the growing importance of robust gene synthesis and molecular cloning strategies tailored specifically for ancestral sequences in advancing our mechanistic understanding of protein evolution and function.

The global gene synthesis market, projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 15-19% from 2025 to 2035, reflects the increasing adoption of these technologies across basic research and therapeutic development [24] [25]. This expansion is fueled by continuous improvements in synthesis chemistry, error correction technologies, and automation platforms that have significantly reduced costs per base pair while improving turnaround times and enabling increasingly complex projects.

Gene Synthesis Strategies for Ancestral Sequences

Service Provider Selection and Considerations

For most research laboratories, outsourcing gene synthesis to specialized service providers represents the most efficient and reliable approach. The gene synthesis market includes established players such as GenScript, Twist Bioscience, Integrated DNA Technologies (IDT), and GeneArt (Thermo Fisher Scientific), each offering proprietary synthesis platforms with varying capabilities [24] [25]. When selecting a provider for ancestral gene synthesis, several technical considerations warrant careful evaluation.

Table 1: Key Considerations for Gene Synthesis Service Selection

Consideration Factor	Importance for Ancestral Sequences	Recommended Specification
Maximum Length Capability	Critical for large multi-domain proteins	>5 kb for most ancestral enzymes; >10 kb for complex systems
Synthesis Accuracy	Essential for faithful reconstruction	<1 error per 10,000 bp with comprehensive error correction
Codon Optimization	Must balance expression with evolutionary accuracy	Species-specific optimization while preserving functional residues
Error Correction Methods	Critical for eliminating frameshifts and stop codons	Combination of enzymatic mismatch cleavage and sequencing verification
Turnaround Time	Impacts research progression	2-4 weeks for standard constructs; faster options for urgent needs
Cloning Compatibility	Flexibility for downstream applications	Multiple vector options with customizable restriction sites or Gibson assembly compatibility
Price Structure	Budget management for multiple reconstructions	Transparent per-base-pair pricing with volume discounts

The segment for genes "Above 5000 bp" is projected to exhibit the fastest growth rate, reflecting increasing demand for complex synthetic constructs in advanced research applications including ancestral protein resurrection [24]. Many providers now offer specialized services for synthesizing difficult sequences with high GC content or repetitive regions, which are commonly encountered in ancestral reconstruction projects.

Sequence Design and Optimization

The design phase is particularly critical for ancestral sequences, where the historical accuracy of the inferred sequence must be balanced with practical considerations for heterologous expression. The following workflow outlines the key decision points in this process:

When applying codon optimization to ancestral sequences, it is crucial to preserve potentially important regulatory motifs and avoid optimizing regions that may represent authentic historical signatures. For example, a 2025 study on modular polyketide synthases successfully created a chimeric didomain by replacing the native AT domain with an ancestral AT (AncAT), confirming that the chimeric protein retained similar enzymatic function to the native didomain while exhibiting enhanced properties for structural analysis [7]. This case demonstrates the functional validation required after ancestral gene synthesis.

Technical Challenges and Solutions

Synthesizing ancestral genes presents unique technical challenges beyond those encountered with contemporary sequences. The table below outlines common challenges and recommended mitigation strategies:

Table 2: Technical Challenges in Ancestral Gene Synthesis

Challenge	Impact on Synthesis	Recommended Solutions
Ambiguous ancestral states	Uncertainty in residue identity; multiple possible sequences	Synthesize multiple variants; incorporate degeneracy at low-probability positions
Unusual codon preferences	Potential expression issues in heterologous systems	Partial codon optimization preserving key ancestral signatures
Structural instability	Folding problems affecting protein function	Incorporate stabilizing ancestral mutations identified through phylogenetic analysis
Repetitive sequences	Synthesis errors and recombination in hosts	Codon diversification; synthesis in fragments with assembly
GC-rich regions	Secondary structure formation impeding synthesis	Strategic AT-rich codon substitution without altering amino acid sequence
Toxic products	Failure to clone synthesized genes	Use of tightly regulated expression systems; lower copy number vectors

The application of ASR to a partial region of targeted multi-domain proteins has been shown to expand the potential of ASR and may serve as a valuable framework for investigating the structure and function of various multi-domain proteins [7]. This modular approach to ancestral resurrection can help mitigate synthesis challenges associated with very large genes.

Molecular Cloning Strategies

Vector Selection and Preparation

Selecting an appropriate expression vector is critical for successful ancestral protein production. Different host systems offer distinct advantages depending on the nature of the ancestral protein and the intended downstream applications.

Table 3: Vector Systems for Ancestral Protein Expression

Vector System	Typical Applications	Advantages	Limitations
Bacterial (pET, pBAD)	High-throughput screening; structural studies	High yield; low cost; extensive toolkit	Lack of eukaryotic post-translational modifications
Yeast (pPIC, pYES)	Eukaryotic proteins requiring glycosylation	Eukaryotic processing; higher yields than mammalian	Hyperglycosylation; fewer tools than bacterial
Baculovirus/Insect Cell	Complex eukaryotic proteins; structural biology	Proper folding and modification; high yields	Time-consuming; more expensive
Mammalian (pcDNA, pCMV)	Functional studies of mammalian proteins	Native-like processing and modification	Lower yields; higher cost; technical complexity
Cell-free Systems	Toxic proteins; incorporation of unnatural amino acids	Flexibility; no cellular toxicity constraints	Limited scale; high cost for large quantities

Recent advances in vector design specifically for ancestral proteins include the incorporation of solubility tags (MBP, GST, SUMO) and cleavage sites to enhance expression and facilitate purification. For example, Belinda Chang's laboratory at the University of Toronto has engineered specialized expression vectors for heterologous opsin expression in mammalian cell culture, developing spectroscopic assays for visual pigment function that can be applied to non-model vertebrate pigments [23].

Cloning Workflow and Method Selection

The cloning strategy for ancestral genes must be selected based on insert size, required precision, and downstream applications. The following workflow illustrates a robust cloning pipeline suitable for most ancestral sequences:

For most ancestral protein projects, Gibson Assembly or related methods (In-Fusion, NEBuilder) offer significant advantages due to their sequence independence and high efficiency, particularly when working with large inserts or multiple variants. These methods eliminate dependence on restriction sites, which is especially valuable when preserving the precise ancestral sequence is critical.

Quality Control and Validation

Rigorous quality control is essential when working with synthesized ancestral genes to ensure sequence fidelity before investing in functional characterization. A multi-tiered verification approach is recommended:

• Initial colony screening by PCR to verify insert presence and approximate size
• Restriction digest analysis to confirm vector organization
• Comprehensive sequencing of the entire insert using both forward and reverse primers with additional internal primers for larger genes
• In silico comparison of the verified sequence against the designed ancestral sequence to identify any discrepancies

The integration of next-generation sequencing (NGS) technologies has dramatically improved the efficiency of sequence verification, particularly when working with multiple ancestral variants or library approaches. The GenScript Life Science Research Grant Program, for instance, has supported projects requiring the synthesis of hundreds of synthetic sequences, which would necessitate robust high-throughput verification methods [26].

Research Reagent Solutions

Successful ancestral protein resurrection depends on access to high-quality research reagents and specialized services. The following table details essential materials and their applications in gene synthesis and molecular cloning workflows for ancestral sequences:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Ancestral Sequence Research

Reagent Category	Specific Products	Function in Workflow	Recommended Providers
Gene Synthesis Services	Custom gene fragments; codon-optimized sequences	De novo production of ancestral coding sequences	GenScript, Twist Bioscience, IDT, GeneArt (Thermo Fisher)
Cloning Kits	Gibson Assembly Master Mix; Restriction enzyme kits; Ligation kits	Assembly of synthesized genes into expression vectors	NEB, Thermo Fisher, Takara Bio, Promega
Expression Vectors	pET series (bacterial); pPIC (yeast); baculovirus (insect)	Protein production in heterologous systems	Addgene, commercial vendors, academic collections
Competent Cells	DH5α (cloning); BL21(DE3) (expression); specialized strains	Plasmid propagation and protein expression	NEB, Thermo Fisher, homemade preparation
Sequence Verification	Sanger sequencing; NGS services; quality control protocols	Confirmation of synthesized sequence fidelity	Genewiz, Eurofins Genomics, Plasmidsaurus
Antibodies	Anti-tag antibodies; custom ancestral protein antibodies	Detection and purification of expressed proteins	Commercial vendors; custom service providers
Purification Resins	Ni-NTA; glutathione agarose; antibody-coupled resins	Isolation of recombinant ancestral proteins	Cytiva, Thermo Fisher, Bio-Rad, Qiagen

Funding opportunities such as the GenScript Life Science Research Grant Program provide critical support for obtaining these research reagents, with grants specifically earmarked for purchasing GenScript reagents and services to advance projects in areas including gene and cell therapy, antibody drug discovery, and vaccine development [26].

Applications and Case Studies

Structural Biology Applications

ASR has proven particularly valuable in structural biology, where enhanced stability of ancestral proteins facilitates high-resolution structure determination. A landmark 2025 study demonstrated this application in modular polyketide synthases (PKSs), large multi-domain enzymes critical for biosynthesis of polyketide antibiotics [7]. Researchers focused on the FD-891 PKS loading module composed of ketosynthase-like decarboxylase (KSQ), acyltransferase (AT) and acyl carrier protein (ACP) domains. They constructed a KSQAncAT chimeric didomain by replacing the native AT with an ancestral AT (AncAT) using ASR [7].

After confirming that the KSQAncAT chimeric didomain retained similar enzymatic function to the native KSQAT didomain, the research team successfully determined a high-resolution crystal structure of the KSQAncAT chimeric didomain and cryo-EM structures of the KSQ-ACP complex [7]. These cryo-EM structures could not be determined for the native protein, exemplifying the utility of ASR to enable cryo-EM single-particle analysis. This case study demonstrates how integrating ASR with structural analysis provides deeper mechanistic insight into complex protein systems, with the potential to expand to various multi-domain proteins [7].

Functional and Evolutionary Studies

Beyond structural biology, ancestral gene synthesis has enabled fundamental investigations into protein evolution and function. Belinda Chang's laboratory at the University of Toronto has pioneered ancestral approaches for studying visual pigment evolution, using these methods to understand the evolution of spectral tuning in different vertebrate groups including cetaceans, Neotropical fishes, and avian visual pigments [23]. Their interdisciplinary approach involves computational methods of evolutionary sequence analysis to infer ancestral sequences, synthesizing the ancestral genes, and expressing them in the laboratory [23].

This research has revealed how visual pigments have adapted to different ecological niches and light environments, providing insights into the molecular mechanisms underlying visual adaptations. For example, their studies of Neotropical cichlids found high levels of positive selection at non-overlapping subsets of amino acid sites when compared with African rift lake cichlids, suggestive of divergent selection that may target similar molecular functions [23].

Troubleshooting Common Issues

Despite careful planning, researchers may encounter challenges during ancestral gene synthesis and cloning. The following table outlines common problems and evidence-based solutions:

Table 5: Troubleshooting Guide for Ancestral Gene Synthesis and Cloning

Problem	Possible Causes	Recommended Solutions
No colonies after transformation	Toxic gene product; inefficient assembly; vector issues	Use lower copy number vectors; try different competent cells; verify assembly efficiency
Incorrect sequence	Synthesis errors; PCR mutations; recombination	Request synthesis with enhanced error correction; use high-fidelity polymerases; employ recombination-deficient strains
No protein expression	Codon bias; toxic effects; improper folding	Try different expression strains; adjust induction conditions; test solubility tags; optimize growth temperature
Insoluble protein	Misfolding; aggregation; lack of partners	Test different tags (MBP, SUMO); optimize expression conditions; co-express with chaperones; refold from inclusion bodies
Low yield	Protease degradation; poor translation; toxicity	Add protease inhibitors; optimize induction OD and temperature; use autoinduction media; try different hosts
Incorrect protein size	Proteolysis; alternative start codons; sequencing errors	Add protease cocktail; use N-terminal tags; verify full-length sequence; check for internal start sites

When troubleshooting, it is often valuable to return to the phylogenetic analysis phase to re-examine the ancestral sequence inference, particularly for regions that repeatedly cause expression problems. Sometimes, alternative reconstructions with statistically equivalent probability may yield more expressible variants while still representing plausible ancestral states.

The field of ancestral sequence resurrection continues to evolve rapidly, driven by advances in both computational biology and gene synthesis technologies. Several emerging trends are likely to shape future research in this area. Decreasing costs of gene synthesis are making it accessible to a wider range of researchers and companies, facilitating larger-scale ancestral resurrection projects [24]. The growing adoption of synthetic biology approaches across basic research and therapeutic development is increasing demand for custom-designed genes, including ancestral sequences [25]. Advances in automation and high-throughput synthesis are enabling more comprehensive exploration of ancestral sequence space and library-based approaches [24]. The development of more sophisticated phylogenetic methods and integration with machine learning approaches is improving the accuracy of ancestral sequence inference, particularly for deep evolutionary reconstructions. Finally, the application of ancestral resurrection to increasingly complex multi-domain proteins and metabolic pathways is expanding the biological questions that can be addressed using these approaches [7].

Gene synthesis and molecular cloning strategies form the technical foundation for ancestral protein resurrection, enabling researchers to bridge deep evolutionary history with contemporary experimental approaches. As these technologies continue to advance, they will undoubtedly yield new insights into protein evolution and function, with applications ranging from basic mechanistic studies to the development of novel enzymes with enhanced properties for biotechnology and therapeutic applications. The integration of robust synthetic biology approaches with phylogenetic inference represents a powerful framework for exploring protein sequence-function relationships across evolutionary timescales.

Heterologous Expression and Purification of Resurrected Proteins

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is a powerful technique in molecular evolution that infers the sequences of ancient proteins from the genomes of modern organisms [2]. The process involves the computational prediction of ancestral sequences, followed by their chemical synthesis, heterologous expression, and purification for functional and structural characterization [27]. This approach, first proposed by Pauling and Zuckerkandl in the 1960s, has evolved into a sophisticated methodology that provides a unique window into protein evolution, enabling researchers to test hypotheses about ancestral environments, enzyme mechanisms, and evolutionary trajectories [2] [6]. The resulting "resurrected" proteins often exhibit enhanced stability and unique functional properties compared to their modern counterparts, making them valuable not only for evolutionary studies but also for biotechnology and drug development [6] [7].

The heterologous expression of resurrected proteins presents distinct challenges and opportunities. While ancestral proteins frequently demonstrate increased thermostability and solubility—properties that facilitate crystallization and structural analysis [7]—their expression in standard prokaryotic systems can be complicated by unique structural features or codon usage biases. This protocol details optimized methods for the expression and purification of resurrected proteins, with a particular emphasis on strategies to leverage their inherent stability while mitigating potential expression challenges. The methods described herein are framed within the context of a broader research program focused on developing robust, standardized laboratory protocols for ancestral protein resurrection.

Experimental Design and Workflow

The overall process for resurrecting and characterizing an ancestral protein integrates computational biology, molecular biology, and protein biochemistry. The workflow proceeds from sequence selection and analysis through to functional validation, with careful attention to the unique requirements of ancestral proteins at each stage.

Figure 1. Overall workflow for ancestral protein resurrection, from sequence selection to functional characterization. Key decision points include ancestral node selection, expression host choice, and purification strategy.

Key Considerations for Ancestral Proteins

When working with resurrected proteins, several unique factors must be considered during experimental design:

• Stability Properties: Ancestral proteins often exhibit heightened thermostability and resistance to denaturation [6] [2]. While beneficial for purification and crystallization, this can sometimes complicate functional assays optimized for less stable modern proteins.
• Codon Optimization: Ancient codon usage patterns may differ significantly from modern expression hosts, necessitating comprehensive codon optimization for heterologous expression [28] [29].
• Epistatic Interactions: The functional effect of a mutation in an ancestral sequence may differ from its effect in a modern background due to epistasis [27]. This context-dependence should be considered when interpreting functional data.
• Reconstruction Uncertainty: All reconstructed sequences contain some degree of uncertainty [5]. Where feasible, expressing multiple plausible reconstructions for the same node can help control for this variability.

Materials and Reagents

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1. Essential research reagents for heterologous expression and purification of resurrected proteins.

Category	Reagent	Function/Application
Cloning	High-fidelity DNA polymerase (e.g., Q5, Phusion)	Error-free amplification of expression constructs [7]
	Restriction enzymes & ligase	Vector construction and gene insertion [30]
	Codon-optimized synthetic genes	Custom gene synthesis for optimal expression [28]
Expression Hosts	Escherichia coli BL21(DE3)	Standard prokaryotic host; suitable for many ancestral proteins [28] [29]
	Aspergillus niger AnN2 chassis	Eukaryotic host with high secretion capacity; engineered for low background proteolysis [30]
	Aspergillus oryzae	GRAS-status fungal host for complex eukaryotic proteins [31]
Expression Media	LB, TB media	Standard bacterial growth media [29]
	DMSO, glycerol, sorbitol	Chemical chaperones to improve folding efficiency [28] [29]
	IPTG	Inducer for T7/lac-based expression systems [29]
Purification	Ni-NTA or Co-TALON resin	Immobilized metal affinity chromatography for His-tagged proteins [29]
	GST, MBP fusion systems	Fusion tags to enhance solubility and enable affinity purification [28] [29]
	Protease cleavage enzymes (e.g., TEV, thrombin)	Removal of affinity tags after purification [29]
Buffers & Additives	L-arginine, proline, betaine	Solubility enhancers in lysis and purification buffers [29]
	PMSF, protease inhibitor cocktails	Prevent proteolytic degradation during purification [30]
	CHAPS, Triton X-100	Detergents for membrane protein solubilization

Equipment

• Thermal cycler for PCR
• Incubator-shakers for microbial culture
• French press or sonicator for cell lysis
• ÄKTA or FPLC chromatography system
• SDS-PAGE and Western blotting apparatus
• Spectrophotometer for protein quantification
• Circular dichroism (CD) spectrometer for stability analysis

Expression Host Selection and Vector Design

Choosing an appropriate expression host is critical for successful production of resurrected proteins. Different host systems offer distinct advantages depending on the properties of the target ancestral protein.

Figure 2. Host selection decision tree for expressing resurrected proteins. The choice depends on protein properties and research goals.

Prokaryotic Expression Systems

Escherichia coli remains the most widely used host for heterologous protein expression due to its rapid growth, well-characterized genetics, and low cost [28] [29]. For ancestral proteins, the following considerations apply:

• Strain Selection: BL21(DE3) and its derivatives (e.g., Origami for disulfide bond formation, Rosetta for rare codons) are typically preferred for ancestral protein expression.
• Codon Optimization: Resurrected sequences often contain codons that are rare in E. coli, potentially leading to translational stalling and inclusion body formation [29]. Use gene synthesis services to optimize codon usage while maintaining the ancestral amino acid sequence.
• Promoter Selection: T7-lac based systems (pET vectors) offer tight regulation and high expression levels for many ancestral proteins [29].
• Fusion Tags: N-terminal fusion tags such as Maltose Binding Protein (MBP) or N-utilization substance A (NusA) can significantly enhance solubility of recalcitrant ancestral proteins [29].

Eukaryotic Expression Systems

Filamentous fungi, particularly Aspergillus species, offer powerful alternatives for ancestral proteins that require eukaryotic folding machinery or are refractory to expression in prokaryotic systems [30] [31].

• Aspergillus niger: Engineered chassis strains like AnN2 (with reduced background proteases and minimized endogenous protein secretion) provide an excellent platform for high-yield production [30]. This system is particularly valuable for secreted ancestral enzymes.
• Aspergillus oryzae: As a GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) organism, A. oryzae is suitable for producing ancestral proteins for therapeutic or food-related applications [31].
• Genetic Engineering: CRISPR/Cas9 systems enable precise integration of ancestral protein genes into fungal genomes, particularly into high-expression loci previously occupied by highly expressed native genes like glucoamylase [30] [31].

Vector Design Specifications

Regardless of the host system, the following elements should be considered in vector design:

• Affinity Tags: Incorporate a cleavable affinity tag (e.g., 6xHis, GST, STREP) at either the N- or C-terminus to facilitate purification.
• Protease Cleavage Sites: Include a specific protease recognition site (e.g., TEV, HRV 3C) between the affinity tag and the ancestral protein sequence to enable tag removal after purification.
• Selection Markers: Appropriate antibiotic resistance genes for bacterial selection or auxotrophic markers for fungal systems.
• Secretion Signals: For fungal expression, incorporate appropriate secretion signals (e.g., glucoamylase or α-amylase signal sequences) to direct the ancestral protein to the extracellular medium [30].

Detailed Expression Protocols

Small-Scale Expression Screening inE. coli

Before proceeding to large-scale expression, small-scale trials are essential to identify optimal conditions for soluble expression of the resurrected protein.

Protocol: Expression Screening

• Transformation: Transform the expression construct into appropriate E. coli expression strains using heat shock or electroporation. Plate on LB agar containing the appropriate antibiotic.
• Inoculum Preparation: Pick 3-5 colonies and inoculate 5 mL of LB medium with antibiotic. Grow overnight at 37°C with shaking at 200-250 rpm.
• Expression Culture: Dilute the overnight culture 1:100 into 5 mL of fresh medium (LB or TB with antibiotic) in a 50 mL tube. Grow at 37°C with shaking until OD600 reaches 0.6-0.8.
• Induction Optimization:
  • Temperature Test: Induce with 0.1-1.0 mM IPTG and incubate at different temperatures (16°C, 25°C, 30°C, 37°C) for 4-16 hours.
  • IPTG Concentration Test: Test different IPTG concentrations (0.1, 0.5, 1.0 mM) at the optimal temperature.
• Chemical Chaperone Screening: Add chemical chaperones to selected cultures to improve folding:
  • 1% DMSO
  • 0.5 M L-arginine
  • 0.5 M betaine
  • 0.5 M sorbitol [29]
• Harvesting: Pellet cells by centrifugation at 4,000 × g for 20 minutes. Store cell pellets at -80°C or proceed immediately to analysis.
• Solubility Analysis: Resuspend cell pellets in lysis buffer (e.g., 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 1 mg/mL lysozyme). Lyse by sonication (3 × 30 seconds pulses) or freeze-thaw. Separate soluble and insoluble fractions by centrifugation at 15,000 × g for 30 minutes. Analyze both fractions by SDS-PAGE.

Table 2. Troubleshooting guide for expression problems with resurrected proteins.

Problem	Possible Causes	Potential Solutions
No Expression	Toxic to host, Poor codon usage, Incorrect vector/construct	Test different expression strains, Verify codon optimization, Sequence verification of construct
Expression Only in Insoluble Fraction	Aggregation, Misfolding, Too rapid expression	Lower induction temperature (16-25°C), Reduce IPTG concentration (0.01-0.1 mM), Co-express molecular chaperones [29], Add chemical chaperones, Test fusion tags (MBP, NusA)
Low Yield of Soluble Protein	Proteolysis, Poor stability, Suboptimal growth conditions	Add protease inhibitors, Shorten induction time, Optimize medium (TB often gives higher yield than LB), Test autoinduction media
Protein Degradation	Host protease activity, Unstable protein	Use protease-deficient strains, Add mixture of protease inhibitors, Purify immediately at 4°C

Expression in Fungal Systems

For ancestral proteins that are poorly expressed in E. coli, filamentous fungi provide a powerful alternative expression platform.

Protocol: Aspergillus niger Expression

• Strain Preparation: Use engineered chassis strains such as AnN2 with reduced background proteases and minimized endogenous protein secretion [30].
• Transformation: Transform the expression construct containing the ancestral protein gene under a strong promoter (e.g., glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase promoter, PgpdA) using CRISPR/Cas9-mediated integration into high-expression loci [30] [31].
• Cultivation: Inoculate transformants into 50 mL of minimal medium in 250 mL shake flasks. Culture at 30°C with shaking at 200 rpm for 48-72 hours [30].
• Secretion Enhancement: For secreted proteins, engineer the vesicular trafficking pathway by overexpressing components such as Cvc2 (a COPI vesicle trafficking component), which has been shown to increase production of heterologous proteins by up to 18% [30].
• Harvesting: Separate mycelia from culture supernatant by filtration or centrifugation at 4,000 × g for 20 minutes. The supernatant contains the secreted ancestral protein.

Purification Strategies

Immobilized Metal Affinity Chromatography (IMAC)

For proteins expressed with polyhistidine tags, IMAC provides efficient single-step purification with high recovery.

Protocol: Ni-NTA Purification

• Lysis: Resuspend cell pellets in lysis buffer (50 mM NaHâ‚‚POâ‚„, 300 mM NaCl, 10 mM imidazole, pH 8.0). Add protease inhibitor cocktail and lysozyme (1 mg/mL). Lyse by sonication (5 × 30 seconds pulses with 30 seconds cooling on ice between pulses).
• Clarification: Centrifuge lysate at 15,000 × g for 30 minutes at 4°C. Retain the supernatant.
• Column Preparation: Equilibrate 1-2 mL of Ni-NTA resin in lysis buffer.
• Binding: Incubate clarified lysate with Ni-NTA resin for 30-60 minutes at 4°C with gentle agitation.
• Washing: Wash resin with 10-20 column volumes of wash buffer (50 mM NaHâ‚‚POâ‚„, 300 mM NaCl, 20-50 mM imidazole, pH 8.0).
• Elution: Elute bound protein with elution buffer (50 mM NaHâ‚‚POâ‚„, 300 mM NaCl, 250 mM imidazole, pH 8.0). Collect 1 mL fractions.
• Buffer Exchange: Desalt into appropriate storage buffer (e.g., 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 7.5, 150 mM NaCl) using PD-10 desalting columns or dialysis.

Purification of Secreted Proteins from Fungal Systems

For ancestral proteins secreted by fungal hosts, purification begins with concentrated culture supernatant.

Protocol: Purification from Aspergillus Culture Supernatant

• Concentration: Concentrate culture supernatant 10-20 fold using tangential flow filtration or stirred cell concentrators with appropriate molecular weight cutoff membranes.
• Buffer Exchange: Desalt concentrated supernatant into appropriate binding buffer for subsequent chromatography steps.
• Affinity Chromatography: Apply to appropriate affinity resin based on the tag (e.g., Ni-NTA for His-tagged proteins).
• Ion Exchange Chromatography: Further purify using anion exchange (Q Sepharose) or cation exchange (SP Sepharose) chromatography as needed.
• Size Exclusion Chromatography: Apply to HiLoad 16/600 Superdex 200 pg column equilibrated with storage buffer for final polishing step and buffer exchange.

Tag Removal

For structural or functional studies requiring removal of affinity tags:

• Dialysis: Dialyze purified protein against appropriate cleavage buffer (e.g., 50 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, 150 mM NaCl, 0.5 mM EDTA, 1 mM DTT).
• Protease Cleavage: Add protease (e.g., TEV protease) at 1:50 to 1:100 (w/w) ratio relative to target protein. Incubate at 4°C for 16 hours or room temperature for 2-4 hours.
• Tag Separation: Pass cleavage mixture over appropriate affinity resin to capture cleaved tag and protease. The flow-through contains the untagged ancestral protein.
• Final Purification: Apply a final size exclusion chromatography step to polish the untagged protein.

Quality Assessment and Characterization

Comprehensive characterization is essential to confirm that the purified ancestral protein is properly folded and functional.

Protocol: Biophysical Characterization

• Purity Analysis: Analyze purified protein by SDS-PAGE followed by Coomassie Blue staining. Expect a single major band at the predicted molecular weight.
• Concentration Determination: Measure protein concentration using UV absorbance at 280 nm (using theoretical extinction coefficient) or Bradford assay.
• Size Exclusion Chromatography with Multi-Angle Light Scattering (SEC-MALS): Confirm monodispersity and correct oligomeric state.
• Circular Dichroism (CD) Spectroscopy: Record far-UV CD spectrum (190-260 nm) to assess secondary structure content and compare with modern counterparts.
• Thermal Stability: Monitor unfolding by following CD signal at 222 nm or intrinsic tryptophan fluorescence while increasing temperature from 20°C to 90°C at 1°C/min. Determine Tm (midpoint of unfolding transition).
• Functional Assays: Perform appropriate activity assays to confirm biological function. Compare kinetic parameters (kcat, KM) with modern counterparts where applicable.

Table 3. Expected yields and properties of resurrected proteins across different expression systems.

Expression System	Typical Yield Range	Advantages	Limitations	Ideal for Ancestral Proteins With
E. coli	0.5 - 50 mg/L culture	Rapid, low cost, high throughput	Limited PTMs, potential aggregation	High thermostability, no complex PTM requirements [28] [29]
A. niger	50 - 400 mg/L culture [30]	High secretion, eukaryotic PTMs, low background proteases in engineered strains	Longer culture times, more complex genetics	Secretory pathway compatibility, industrial scale-up [30] [31]
A. oryzae	10 - 100 mg/L culture	GRAS status, strong secretion, food-compatible	Moderate yields for some proteins	Therapeutic or food-related applications [31]

Applications and Concluding Remarks

The successful heterologous expression and purification of resurrected proteins opens numerous avenues for scientific investigation. The enhanced stability often exhibited by ancestral proteins makes them particularly attractive for structural biology efforts, as demonstrated by the successful crystallization of an ancestral AT domain that facilitated high-resolution structural analysis of a polyketide synthase loading module [7]. Furthermore, the unique functional properties of resurrected proteins can provide insights into the evolutionary history of enzyme mechanisms and the environmental conditions of ancient organisms [6].

The protocols outlined in this document provide a comprehensive framework for expressing and purifying ancestral proteins, with particular attention to the unique challenges and opportunities they present. By leveraging both prokaryotic and eukaryotic expression systems and implementing robust purification strategies, researchers can reliably produce resurrected proteins for functional characterization, structural analysis, and biotechnology applications. As ancestral protein reconstruction continues to grow as a field, these standardized protocols will facilitate more efficient and reproducible resurrection of ancient proteins, deepening our understanding of molecular evolution while providing stable protein scaffolds for engineering novel functions.

Within the field of ancestral protein resurrection, biophysical characterization is a critical step that bridges computational sequence reconstruction with functional validation. This protocol details the application of key biophysical techniques to analyze the stability, folding, and structural integrity of resurrected ancestral proteins. Resurrected ancestral proteins often exhibit remarkable properties, including enhanced stability, conformational flexibility, and altered interaction patterns, which require rigorous experimental scrutiny [32]. The following application notes provide a standardized framework for researchers to obtain quantitative, reproducible data, enabling insights into the evolutionary trajectories of protein energy landscapes [1].

The following table summarizes the primary biophysical methods used for characterizing resurrected ancestral proteins, their key applications, and the specific structural and stability parameters they measure.

Table 1: Core Biophysical Techniques for Ancestral Protein Characterization

Technique	Key Applications	Measurable Parameters	Information Level
Small-Angle X-ray Scattering (SAXS)	Analysis of global conformation and ensemble states in solution [33].	Radius of gyration (Rg), Pair distance distribution function, Porod volume [33].	Global, Low-Resolution
Hydrogen/Deuterium Exchange (HDX)	Probing solvent accessibility and dynamics of backbone amides [33].	Protection Factor (PF), HDX kinetics [33].	Site-Specific (Backbone)
Hydroxyl Radical Protein Footprinting (HRPF)	Mapping solvent-exposed sidechains and protein-protein interfaces [33].	HRPF rate, Sidechain solvent accessibility [33].	Site-Specific (Sidechain)
Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR)	Determining atomic-resolution structure and dynamics in solution [34].	Chemical shift, Relaxation rates, Interatomic distances [34].	Atomic, Residue-Level
Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)	Measuring thermal stability and unfolding cooperativity.	Melting temperature (Tm), Enthalpy of unfolding (ΔH), Heat capacity change (ΔCp).	Global Stability
Circular Dichroism (CD) Spectroscopy	Assessing secondary structure content and folding transitions [34].	Molar ellipticity, Melting temperature (Tm) [34].	Global, Secondary Structure

Detailed Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Conformational Analysis via SEC-SAXS

Principle: Size-exclusion chromatography coupled SAXS (SEC-SAXS) provides an ensemble-averaged representation of a protein's global conformation and flexibility in solution, free from aggregation artifacts [33]. This is vital for characterizing the potentially unique conformational ensembles of ancestral proteins.

Workflow Diagram: SEC-SAXS for Conformational Analysis

Procedure:

• Sample Preparation: Dialyze the resurrected ancestral protein into a suitable SEC running buffer (e.g., 20 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.5). Centrifuge at 15,000 × g for 10 minutes to remove particulate matter. Final concentration should be 5-10 mg/mL for a 50 μL injection.
• SEC-SAXS Data Collection:
  • Equilibrate a bio-inert SEC column (e.g., Superdex 200 Increase 3.2/300) with at least two column volumes of running buffer.
  • Connect the column outlet directly to the in-line SAXS flow cell.
  • Inject 50 μL of sample. Collect X-ray scattering data continuously throughout the elution.
  • Monitor the elution UV trace and select the scattering data corresponding to the monodisperse peak for analysis.
• Data Analysis:
  • Use the ATSAS software suite for data processing.
  • Subtract the buffer scattering from the sample scattering to obtain the protein scattering profile, I(q).
  • Generate the pair distance distribution function, P(r), using the indirect Fourier transform program GNOM [33].
  • Calculate the radius of gyration (Rg) from the low-q region of I(q) using the Guinier approximation.
  • Construct a Kratky plot (q²·I(q) vs. q) to assess the degree of foldedness: a sharp peak indicates a folded protein, while a plateau at high q suggests disorder [33].

Protocol 2: Stability Profiling Using Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC)

Principle: DSC directly measures the heat capacity change associated with protein thermal unfolding, providing a model-free assessment of thermodynamic stability. This is crucial for quantifying the often-enhanced thermostability of resurrected ancestral proteins [32].

Procedure:

• Sample and Buffer Preparation: Dialyze the ancestral protein extensively against a degassed reference buffer (e.g., 20 mM phosphate buffer, pH 7.0). After dialysis, dilute the protein to a final concentration of 0.5-1.0 mg/mL using the dialysate. Centrifuge to clarify.
• DSC Experiment:
  • Load the sample cell with protein solution and the reference cell with dialysate buffer.
  • Set a temperature ramp from 20°C to 110°C at a scan rate of 1°C/min.
  • Apply a constant pressure (e.g., 2 atm) to prevent bubble formation.
  • Run a buffer-buffer baseline scan and subtract it from the sample scan.
• Data Analysis:
  • Identify the melting temperature (Tm) at the maximum of the heat capacity peak.
  • Integrate the area under the peak to determine the calorimetric enthalpy of unfolding (ΔHcal).
  • Fit the data to a non-two-state or two-state unfolding model, depending on the peak shape, to obtain the van't Hoff enthalpy (ΔHvH). A ΔHcal/ΔHvH ratio close to 1 indicates two-state unfolding.

Protocol 3: Residue-Level Solvent Exposure via HDX-MS

Principle: Hydrogen/Deuterium Exchange coupled with Mass Spectrometry (HDX-MS) measures the rate at which backbone amide hydrogens exchange with deuterium in the solvent, revealing dynamics and solvent accessibility at peptide-level resolution [33].

Workflow Diagram: HDX-MS for Solvent Exposure Mapping

Procedure:

• HDX Reaction:
  • Dilute the ancestral protein 10-fold into a Dâ‚‚O-based reaction buffer. Incubate at a constant temperature (e.g., 25°C) for various time points (e.g., 10 s, 1 min, 10 min, 1 h, 4 h).
• Quenching and Digestion:
  • At each time point, withdraw an aliquot and mix with a quench solution (e.g., low pH buffer, 0°C) to reduce the pH to ~2.5 and minimize back-exchange.
  • Immediately inject the quenched sample onto a cooled LC system with an immobilized pepsin column for rapid digestion (≈1 min).
• Mass Spectrometry Analysis:
  • Separate the resulting peptides using a reverse-phase UPLC column.
  • Analyze peptides with a high-resolution mass spectrometer.
  • Identify peptides using MS/MS of a non-deuterated control sample.
• Data Processing:
  • For each peptide and time point, calculate the centroid mass of the isotopic envelope to determine the average deuterium uptake.
  • Plot deuterium incorporation vs. time for each peptide.
  • Calculate the protection factor (PF), which reflects the free energy difference for exchange between the folded and unfolded state, providing insight into local stability and dynamics [33].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Reagents and Materials for Biophysical Characterization

Research Reagent	Specifications & Function	Application Notes
Size-Exclusion Chromatography Column	Superdex 200 Increase 3.2/300; Separates monodisperse protein from aggregates for SEC-SAXS and clean biophysical analysis.	Ensure buffer compatibility. Pre-calibrate with standard proteins for molecular weight estimation.
SAXS Running Buffer	20 mM HEPES, 150 mM NaCl, pH 7.5; Provides a physiologically relevant, non-interfering environment for scattering.	Must be filter-sterilized (0.22 μm) and degassed. Match buffer exactly for sample and background.
DSC Reference Buffer	20 mM Potassium Phosphate, pH 7.0; A low-ionization-enthalpy buffer for precise baseline subtraction in DSC.	Critical to use the same batch of dialysate for sample preparation and reference cell.
Deuterium Oxide (Dâ‚‚O)	99.9% atom D; The labeling agent for HDX-MS experiments, enabling tracking of solvent exposure.	Store properly to prevent Hâ‚‚O contamination. Use high-purity grade for consistent results.
Quench Buffer (for HDX-MS)	0.1 M Phosphate, 0.5 M TCEP, pH 2.5; Lowers pH and temperature to quench HDX reaction and denatures protein for digestion.	Must be pre-chilled to 0°C. TCEP is preferred over DTT for stability at low pH.
Immobilized Pepsin Column	Poroszyme Immobilized Pepsin Cartridge; Provides rapid, reproducible digestion for HDX-MS under quench conditions.	Keep column chilled during digestion. Monitor digestion efficiency regularly.
10Z-Vitamin K2-d7	10Z-Vitamin K2-d7|Deuterated Research Standard	High-purity 10Z-Vitamin K2-d7 for research. An internal standard for LC-MS/MS analysis of Vitamin K2 metabolites. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.
(Z)-Roxithromycin-d7	(Z)-Roxithromycin-d7, MF:C₄₁H₆₉D₇N₂O₁₄, MW:828.09	Chemical Reagent

Integrated Data Interpretation in Ancestral Protein Studies

Integrating data from the above protocols provides a comprehensive picture of ancestral protein biophysics. For instance, a resurrected ancestral protein might display:

• A higher Tm from DSC, indicating enhanced global thermostability [32].
• A similar Rg from SAXS but a altered Kratky plot, suggesting a compact yet more flexible conformation compared to a modern counterpart.
• Distinct HDX protection patterns, revealing regions of altered rigidity or dynamic allostery that may be linked to ancestral functional promiscuity [1] [32].

This multi-faceted characterization is essential for moving beyond simple structural models and understanding the evolved functional dynamics and stability that define ancestral proteins, ultimately illuminating their evolutionary histories and unlocking their biotechnological potential [7] [1] [32].

Within the framework of ancestral protein resurrection research, functional assays are indispensable for characterizing the biochemical properties of resurrected enzymes. This field aims to understand molecular evolution by inferring the sequences of ancient proteins, synthesizing them, and experimentally analyzing their traits [1]. Functional assays provide the critical data on enzymatic activity, ligand binding, and substrate specificity that allow researchers to test evolutionary hypotheses about how protein energy landscapes and functions have shifted over millennia [1]. The precision of these assays directly determines the robustness of evolutionary inferences, making the choice of appropriate methodologies a cornerstone of ancestral protein research. This application note details cutting-edge and classical protocols tailored to the unique challenges of profiling resurrected ancestral enzymes, which often possess unknown structures and substrate preferences.

Quantitative Profiling of Enzymatic Activity

Measuring enzymatic activity is fundamental to establishing the baseline function of a resurrected protein. Modern approaches leverage high-throughput technologies and sensitive detection methods to comprehensively profile enzyme kinetics and inhibition.

Microplate-Based Activity Assay with Activity-Based Probes

A powerful contemporary method combines the precision of Activity-Based Protein Profiling (ABPP) with the efficiency of microplate assay technology [35]. This protocol is particularly valuable for ancestral enzymes of unknown structure or specificity, as it uses an activity-based probe to directly monitor enzyme function and inhibitor interactions.

Principle: The core of this method is competitive ABPP, which utilizes an electrophilic, fluorescently-tagged Activity-Based Probe (ABP) that covalently binds to the active site of the enzyme. Competition with a potential inhibitor reduces the fluorescent signal, allowing for characterization of inhibitor potency and specificity [35]. The workflow involves chemical modification of the enzyme, such as pig liver esterase (PLE), to introduce a tag (e.g., streptavidin) for immobilization on biotinylated assay plates. This setup enables parallelized screening of compound libraries and estimation of ICâ‚…â‚€ values in a single operation [35].

Table 1: Key Reagents for Microplate-Based ABPP Assay

Research Reagent	Function in the Protocol
Fluorophosphonate (FP)-based ABP	Electrophilic probe that covalently labels active sites; provides fluorescent readout.
Biotinylated Assay Plate	Solid support for immobilizing streptavidin-tagged enzymes.
Streptavidin-Tagged Enzyme	Enables specific immobilization of the enzyme onto the microplate.
Test Inhibitor Library	Collection of compounds for screening against the target enzyme.

Protocol Steps:

• Enzyme Preparation: Engineer and purify the ancestral enzyme with a streptavidin tag.
• Immobilization: Incubate the tagged enzyme in biotinylated microplate wells to allow binding.
• Competitive Incubation: Pre-incubate immobilized enzymes with a range of inhibitor concentrations.
• ABP Labelling: Add the fluorophosphonate-based ABP to the wells. The probe will label any remaining unoccupied active sites.
• Signal Detection and Analysis: Measure fluorescence. A decrease in signal is proportional to inhibitor potency, allowing for ICâ‚…â‚€ calculation [35].

Classical Spectrophotometric Enzyme Activity Assay

For well-characterized reactions, a traditional colorimetric assay provides a robust and straightforward method to determine activity, such as for ancestral amylases.

Principle: This assay measures the release of reducing sugars (maltose) from starch by an amylase enzyme. The 3,5-dinitrosalicylic acid (DNS) reagent reacts with the reducing sugars, producing a colored complex that can be quantified by absorbance [36].

Protocol Steps:

• Reaction Setup: Add 50 µL of enzyme solution to 200 µL of soluble starch (0.5% in 0.1 M Tris-HCl buffer, pH 7.0) at 60°C for 30 minutes.
• Reaction Termination: Add 0.4 mL of DNS reagent and boil the mixture for 5 minutes.
• Measurement: Cool the mixture, dilute with 3.0 mL of distilled water, and measure the absorption at 489 nm.
• Calculation: One unit of amylase activity is defined as the amount of enzyme that releases 1 µmol of maltose per minute per mL under the assay conditions [36].

Diagram 1: Workflow for a microplate-based competitive ABPP assay. The fluorescence signal is inversely related to inhibitor potency.

Determining Ligand Binding Affinity and Kinetics

Ligand Binding Assays (LBAs) are a cornerstone of bioanalytical testing, crucial for understanding how resurrected ancestral proteins interact with potential substrates, inhibitors, or cofactors.

LBAs are highly sensitive and specific methods used to detect and quantify biomolecular interactions. They are versatile tools for pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and biomarker analysis [37]. These assays are particularly well-suited for characterizing biologics and complex therapeutics, making them ideal for protein resurrection studies focused on ancient therapeutic targets.

Table 2: Common Techniques for Ligand Binding Assays

Technique	Principle	Key Application in Ancestral Research
Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) [38]	Measures binding kinetics in real-time by detecting changes in refractive index when a ligand binds to an immobilized target.	Determining the association ((k\text{on})) and dissociation ((k\text{off})) rates of an ancestral enzyme with its substrate.
Biolayer Interferometry (BLI) [38]	An optical technique that monitors interference patterns to measure binding kinetics and affinity.	A label-free alternative to SPR for characterizing binding to biosensor-tipped probes.
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) [38]	An end-point assay using enzyme-mediated color change to detect binding.	High-throughput screening of antibody binding to resurrected ancestral antigens.
Microfluidic Diffusional Sizing (MDS) [38]	Measures the change in hydrodynamic radius ((R_\text{h})) of a fluorescent target upon ligand binding in solution.	Assessing binding and complex formation under native conditions without immobilization.
Radioligand Binding Assays (RBA) [38]	Uses a radioisotope-tagged ligand to measure binding to the target.	Highly sensitive quantification of binding for low-abundance or low-affinity interactions.

Protocol: Binding Affinity Determination via Microfluidic Diffusional Sizing

MDS is a modern, in-solution technique that offers a label-free advantage and operates well in complex biological matrices, which can be beneficial for studying ancient proteins that may require specific chaperones or cofactors.

Principle: MDS measures the diffusion coefficient of a fluorescent target in a microfluidic chamber. Upon binding to an unlabeled ligand, the complex's hydrodynamic radius increases, leading to a slower diffusion rate. This size change is used to quantify binding affinity [38].

Protocol Steps:

• Sample Preparation: Prepare a fixed concentration of the fluorescently-labeled ancestral protein. Pre-mix it with a dilution series of the unlabeled ligand and incubate to reach equilibrium.
• Chip Loading: Load the mixtures into the inlet reservoir of a Fluidity One-M microfluidic chip.
• Diffusion Measurement: The instrument images the diffusion of the fluorescent protein from a central stream into adjacent buffer streams. The diffusion rate is directly related to the particle size.
• Data Analysis: The apparent hydrodynamic radius is plotted against the ligand concentration. The data is fit to a binding model to determine the dissociation constant ((K_\text{D})) [38].

Tips to Avoid Pitfalls:

• Quality Control: Verify the integrity of your protein and ligand samples. Aggregation or degradation can severely skew results. MDS has a built-in QC function to assess sample integrity via size measurement [38].
• Optimize Conditions: Control buffer composition, pH, and temperature, as these can significantly influence binding affinity [38].
• Minimize Non-Specific Binding: Use physiologically meaningful parameters like hydrodynamic radius to identify non-specific interactions, as the measured size will deviate from the predicted complex size [38].

Diagram 2: A generalized workflow for determining binding kinetics and affinity using surface-based techniques like SPR or BLI.

Elucidating and Predicting Enzyme Specificity

A central goal in ancestral protein resurrection is to understand how substrate specificity evolved. While experimental profiling is essential, new computational tools powerfully complement wet-lab methods.

Experimental Profiling of Specificity

Broad-specificity profiling involves testing the enzyme against a large panel of potential substrates. The microplate-based ABPP protocol described in Section 2.1 is an excellent example, as it can be adapted to screen diverse substrate libraries in parallel to map the promiscuity of a resurrected enzyme [35].

Computational Prediction of Substrate Specificity

For the millions of enzymes that lack characterized substrates, computational models are invaluable for guiding experimental work.

EZSpecificity Tool: This is a state-of-the-art AI tool, specifically a cross-attention-empowered SE(3)-equivariant graph neural network, that predicts enzyme-substrate specificity [39] [40]. It was trained on a comprehensive database of enzyme-substrate interactions at the sequence and structural levels.

• Performance: EZSpecificity significantly outperforms existing models. Experimental validation with eight halogenases and 78 substrates showed EZSpecificity achieved 91.7% accuracy in identifying the single potential reactive substrate, compared to 58.3% for a previous state-of-the-art model [39].
• Application: Researchers can input a substrate and a protein sequence, and the tool predicts the likelihood of a successful interaction. This is particularly useful for generating hypotheses about the function of resurrected ancestral enzymes of unknown specificity [40].

EZSCAN Tool: This complementary software focuses on identifying the specific amino acid residues that determine substrate specificity [41]. It uses a machine learning-based binary classification algorithm on sequences of homologous enzymes with different specificities to pinpoint critical residues.

• Application: In ancestral resurrection, EZSCAN can analyze the reconstructed sequences of ancestors to predict how key specificity-determining residues changed along the evolutionary timeline. This provides testable hypotheses for experimental mutagenesis studies [41].

Table 3: Comparison of Specificity Prediction and Analysis Tools

Tool	Type	Primary Function	Key Utility in Ancestral Research
EZSpecificity [39] [40]	AI Graph Neural Network	Predicts the binding compatibility between an enzyme and a substrate.	Generating high-confidence hypotheses for which substrates to test with a resurrected ancestral enzyme.
EZSCAN [41]	Machine Learning Classifier	Identifies amino acid residues critical for determining substrate specificity.	Pinpointing evolutionary mutations that likely led to shifts in function between ancestral and modern enzymes.

The integration of detailed functional assays with powerful computational predictions creates a robust framework for advancing ancestral protein research. Experimental protocols like ABPP-powered microplate assays and modern LBAs provide the ground-truth data on activity, binding, and specificity for resurrected enzymes. These empirical data are essential for validating evolutionary models derived from Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR), which infers ancient sequences to characterize how historical mutations altered protein energy landscapes and function [1]. Meanwhile, AI tools like EZSpecificity and EZSCAN offer an efficient strategy to guide experimental efforts, helping researchers prioritize which substrates and residues to investigate [39] [41]. Together, this combined empirical and computational toolkit enables a deeper understanding of the mechanistic basis of protein evolution, from reconstructing ancient functions to engineering new ones.

Addressing Reconstruction Biases and Experimental Challenges

Navigating Phylogenetic Uncertainty and Model Selection

Application Note: The Impact of Phylogenetic Uncertainty on Ancestral Protein Resurrection

Ancestral protein resurrection relies on accurate phylogenetic trees to infer the genetic sequences of ancient proteins. Phylogenetic uncertainty—ambiguity in evolutionary relationships—directly impacts the accuracy of these inferred sequences and the functionality of the resulting resurrected proteins. Traditional phylogenetic support measures, such as Felsenstein’s bootstrap, are computationally prohibitive for large datasets typical of modern genomic studies and focus on clade membership, which is less relevant for tracing specific mutational histories [42]. This note outlines a streamlined, reliable workflow integrating the Subtree Pruning and Regrafting-based Tree Assessment (SPRTA) method to quantify and manage phylogenetic uncertainty, ensuring robust downstream ancestral reconstructions for drug discovery [42].

The reliability of any phylogenetic analysis is also contingent on selecting an appropriate evolutionary model. Research indicates that multiple sequence alignment (MSA) uncertainty can significantly affect model selection, particularly for nucleotide data, potentially leading to the selection of different best-fitting models from different MSAs of the same sequence set [43]. This cascade effect underscores the necessity of integrating alignment assessment and model selection into a cohesive, validated protocol.

Table 1: Key Branch Support Methods for Assessing Phylogenetic Uncertainty

Method	Core Principle	Computational Demand	Interpretation in Genomic Epidemiology
SPRTA [42]	Assesses confidence in evolutionary origin via Subtree Pruning and Regrafting moves	At least 2 orders of magnitude lower than bootstrap methods	Approximate probability that a lineage evolved directly from another
Felsenstein’s Bootstrap [42]	Resamples data to measure repeatability of clades	Excessively high for pandemic-scale datasets	Confidence that a set of taxa form a true clade
aBayes [42]	Compares likelihood of inferred tree against alternatives	Lower than bootstrap, but higher than SPRTA	Approximate posterior probability of a clade

Protocol for Robust Phylogenetic Inference and Model Selection

This protocol provides a step-by-step guide for phylogenetic tree estimation with integrated uncertainty assessment, tailored for projects requiring high-confidence ancestral node inference, such as ancestral protein resurrection.

Stage 1: Robust Multiple Sequence Alignment and Assessment

Objective: Generate a reliable Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) and evaluate its robustness to uncertainty.

• Alignment with GUIDANCE2: Input your multi-sequence FASTA file into the GUIDANCE2 server, selecting MAFFT as the alignment tool. Default parameters are suitable for most datasets [44].
• Parameter Adjustment (Optional): For datasets with high complexity or specific characteristics, adjust the MAFFT pairwise alignment method:
  • localpair: Ideal for sequences with local similarities or conserved regions [44].
  • genafpair: Best for longer sequences requiring a global alignment [44].
  • globalpair: Designed for global alignments of similarly lengthed sequences [44].
• Evaluate and Filter: After alignment, download the resulting FASTA file. Use the alignment confidence scores from GUIDANCE2 to identify and remove unreliably aligned columns, thereby reducing MSA uncertainty before model selection [44] [43].

Stage 2: Evolutionary Model Selection

Objective: Identify the optimal evolutionary model for phylogenetic inference, accounting for alignment uncertainty.

• Format Conversion: Convert the filtered alignment FASTA file to NEXUS format using MEGA X to ensure compatibility with downstream model selection and Bayesian inference tools [44].
• Run Model Selection:
  • For nucleotide sequences, use MrModeltest2 executed within PAUP* to compare nucleotide substitution models. The best-fitting model is selected based on statistical criteria like the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) [44].
  • For protein sequences, use ProtTest, which requires Java. It will identify the best-fitting amino acid replacement model based on AIC or Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC) [44].
• Sensitivity Analysis (Recommended): To assess the impact of MSA uncertainty on model choice, repeat the model selection process (Step 2.2.2) using several alternative MSAs generated from the same sequence set (e.g., using different alignment tools or parameters). Consistent model selection across MSAs increases confidence in the result [43].

Stage 3: Bayesian Phylogenetic Inference with MrBayes

Objective: Estimate the phylogenetic tree and posterior probabilities of clades using Bayesian inference.

• Prepare MrBayes Block: Create a NEXUS file containing your aligned sequences and a MrBayes block specifying the analysis parameters. Incorporate the best-fitting model identified in Stage 2.
  • Example block for a nucleotide model:

• Execute Analysis: Run the MrBayes executable (mb.exe) from the command line in the directory containing your NEXUS file. Execute your analysis file using the execute command within MrBayes. Monitor the average standard deviation of split frequencies; a value below 0.01 suggests the Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) analysis has converged [44].
• Validate and Visualize: Use the sump command in MrBayes to examine parameter estimates and ensure effective sample sizes (ESS) are adequate (>200). The consensus tree with posterior probabilities can be visualized in tree viewers like FigTree or iTOL [44].

Stage 4: Assessing Phylogenetic Placement Confidence with SPRTA

Objective: Quantify confidence in the evolutionary origin of specific lineages, which is critical for pinpointing ancestral nodes for resurrection.

• Integrate SPRTA: For large datasets or when a mutational/placement focus is required, employ the SPRTA method. This can be run in conjunction with maximum-likelihood phylogenetic inference in tools like MAPLE or RaxML [42].
• Interpret SPRTA Scores: The SPRTA(b) score for a branch b connecting ancestor A to descendant B is interpreted as the approximate probability that B evolved directly from A, as opposed to an alternative placement in the tree. High confidence (>95%) in branches leading to your target ancestral node is essential for reliable protein resurrection [42].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Computational Tools for Phylogenetic Analysis and Ancestral Resurrection

Tool / Reagent	Function in Protocol	Specifications
GUIDANCE2 & MAFFT [44]	Performs robust multiple sequence alignment and identifies unreliable regions.	Web server or command-line tool. Critical for handling indels and complex evolutionary events.
ProtTest & MrModeltest2 [44]	Automates selection of best-fit evolutionary model for protein or nucleotide data.	Relies on Java and PAUP*. Uses AIC/BIC criteria for statistical robustness.
MrBayes [44]	Executes Bayesian phylogenetic inference to estimate trees with posterior probabilities.	Version 3.2.7a. Requires NEXUS format input. Computes consensus tree from MCMC samples.
SPRTA [42]	Provides efficient, pandemic-scale assessment of confidence in evolutionary origins.	Integrated into tools like MAPLE. Shifts focus from clades to mutational histories.
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) [45]	Infers the genetic sequence of ancestral nodes identified in the phylogenetic tree.	Computational technique. Input is a high-confidence tree and alignment. Output is a predicted ancient sequence.
CRISPR-Cas Tools [45]	Enables genome editing in model organisms to test the function of resurrected ancient genes/pathways.	Uses nucleases like Cas12a. Ancestrally reconstructed versions (e.g., ReChb) offer PAM-flexibility for broader targeting.
5-Carboxy Imazapyr	5-Carboxy Imazapyr	High-purity 5-Carboxy Imazapyr for research. This product is For Research Use Only (RUO). Not for human or veterinary use.
GNE-0877-d3	GNE-0877-d3, MF:C₁₄H₁₃D₃F₃N₇, MW:342.34	Chemical Reagent

The successful resurrection of functional ancient proteins, such as the paleomycin antibiotics or PAM-flexible gene-editing enzyme ReChb, is fundamentally dependent on a rigorous phylogenetic foundation [45]. By adopting the integrated protocol outlined here—which systematically addresses alignment uncertainty, model selection sensitivity, and phylogenetic confidence—researchers can significantly enhance the reliability of their ancestral reconstructions. This robust framework empowers scientists in drug discovery and biotechnology to confidently mine evolutionary history for novel bioactive compounds, such as antibiotics and cancer treatments, turning deep time into a viable resource for addressing modern medical challenges [46] [47].

Overcoming Low Probability and Ambiguous Sites in Sequence Reconstruction

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) infers the sequences of ancient proteins from modern descendants, enabling researchers to study molecular evolution and resurrect ancestral proteins in the laboratory [1]. A significant challenge in ASR involves handling low-probability and ambiguous sites, where the reconstructed amino acid has weak statistical support. These ambiguities often arise at fast-evolving sites or nodes connected by long branches, where phylogenetic signal is weak [48]. This Application Note details standardized protocols to identify, resolve, and validate such problematic sites, ensuring robust reconstructions for downstream functional characterization.

Ambiguity in ASR primarily stems from two technical challenges:

• Weak Phylogenetic Signal: The primary determinant of ASR accuracy is the strength of the phylogenetic signal in the multiple sequence alignment (MSA), not the complexity of the substitution model. Unincorporated realistic evolutionary heterogeneity has been shown to have minimal impact on the final reconstructed sequence [48].
• Model Misspecification: The vast majority of ASR is performed using site-homogeneous models, which assume all amino acid sites have the same vector of equilibrium frequencies and substitution rates. This assumption is routinely violated due to differing structural and functional constraints at different sites [48].

Quantitative Assessment of Ambiguity

The statistical support for a reconstructed ancestral state is quantified by its posterior probability, calculated using the marginal probability method [1]. Sites with posterior probabilities below a defined threshold are considered ambiguous. The table below summarizes critical thresholds and their interpretations.

Table 1: Quantitative Thresholds for Identifying Ambiguous Sites

Metric	Threshold Value	Interpretation	Recommended Action
Posterior Probability (PP)	PP < 0.8	Low confidence in the inferred amino acid [1]	Flag for manual inspection and uncertainty analysis.
Branch Length	Long Branches	Increased probability of reconstruction error [48]	Interpret ancestral nodes with caution; prioritize densely sampled phylogenies.
Site-wise Rate	Fast-Evolving Sites	Weak phylogenetic signal, high ambiguity [48]	Treat reconstructed residues as provisional.

A Workflow for Managing Ambiguity

The following workflow provides a systematic approach for identifying and resolving ambiguous sites during ASR. It integrates computational checks and experimental validation.

Diagram 1: A workflow for managing ambiguous sites in ASR. PP = Posterior Probability.

Detailed Protocols for Resolution and Validation

Protocol 1: Computational Identification of Ambiguous Sites

Purpose: To systematically flag low-probability sites in a reconstructed ancestral sequence.

Materials:

• Software: Phylogenetics package (e.g., HyPhy, IQ-TREE, MrBayes)
• Input: High-quality Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) and a corresponding phylogenetic tree.

Methodology:

• Model Selection and Reconstruction: Perform ASR using a maximum likelihood or Bayesian framework. The marginal probability method is standard for calculating the posterior probability (PP) for each amino acid at each ancestral site [1].
• Data Extraction: From the ASR output, extract for each ancestral node of interest:
  • The most probable amino acid at each site.
  • Its corresponding posterior probability.
  • The branch lengths leading to and from the node.
• Flagging Ambiguous Sites: Programmatically flag sites meeting any of the following criteria:
  • Primary Criterion: Posterior probability below a set threshold (e.g., PP < 0.8).
  • Secondary Criterion: Sites located on tree branches identified as "long" (e.g., branches exceeding the 95th percentile in length for the given tree).
• Output: Generate a list of flagged sites for downstream analysis.

Protocol 2: Experimental Validation via Site-Directed Mutagenesis

Purpose: To empirically test the functional impact of alternative residues at ambiguous sites.

Materials:

• Reagents: Synthesized gene for the reconstructed ancestral protein, site-directed mutagenesis kit, expression vector, host cells (e.g., E. coli), protein purification reagents.
• Equipment: Thermocycler, spectrophotometer, and relevant functional assay equipment.

Methodology:

• Construct Design:
  • Synthesize the ancestral gene based on the maximum likelihood reconstruction.
  • Design mutant constructs where ambiguous sites are substituted with the top alternative amino acids identified during the uncertainty analysis.
• Mutagenesis and Expression:
  • Use a high-fidelity site-directed mutagenesis protocol to generate the variant constructs.
  • Express the wild-type (max likelihood) and all variant proteins in a suitable heterologous system.
• Functional Characterization:
  • Purify all proteins using a standardized protocol (e.g., affinity chromatography).
  • Measure key biochemical parameters relevant to the protein's function, such as:
    • Catalytic efficiency (k_cat/K_m) for enzymes.
    • Ligand binding affinity.
    • Thermostability (T_m).
• Data Interpretation:
  • Compare the functional profiles of the variants. If different residues at an ambiguous site lead to significant functional differences, the ambiguity is biologically relevant.
  • The residue that confers the hypothesized ancestral function (e.g., high stability, ancestral substrate specificity) may represent the most likely true ancestral state, even if its PP was modest.

Table 2: Research Reagent Solutions for ASR Validation

Reagent/Resource	Function/Description	Example Use Case
Phylogenetics Software (IQ-TREE, HyPhy)	Infers phylogenetic trees and reconstructs ancestral sequences with statistical support values.	Identifying sites with posterior probabilities < 0.8 [1].
Deep Mutational Scanning (DMS)	High-throughput experimental method characterizing the functional effect of mutations at each site [48].	Parameterizing site-specific substitution models; understanding functional constraints.
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit	Enables precise introduction of point mutations into a DNA sequence.	Creating alternative variants at ambiguous sites for experimental testing.
Heterologous Expression System	Allows for the production and purification of ancestral proteins in a lab host (e.g., E. coli, yeast).	Producing sufficient quantities of protein for biophysical and biochemical assays [7].

Ambiguous sites with low posterior probability are an inherent challenge in ASR. Overcoming them requires a multifaceted strategy that prioritizes strengthening phylogenetic signal through dense taxonomic sampling over model complexity [48]. The integrated computational and experimental framework presented here provides a robust protocol for identifying these sites, assessing their potential impact, and empirically resolving their identities, thereby increasing the confidence and reliability of resurrected ancestral proteins for structural and functional studies [7].

Resolving Challenges in Expressing and Solubilizing Ancient Proteins

Ancestral protein resurrection is a powerful tool for understanding molecular evolution and engineering proteins with enhanced stability. However, expressing and solubilizing these ancient proteins in modern heterologous systems presents significant challenges, including low expression yields, protein misfolding, and formation of insoluble aggregates. This article provides detailed application notes and protocols to overcome these hurdles, enabling successful production of functional ancestral proteins for basic research and drug development.

Key Challenges and Strategic Solutions

The resurrection of ancient proteins often involves working with inferred sequences that may be incompatible with modern expression hosts. The table below summarizes the primary challenges and corresponding strategic solutions.

Table 1: Key Challenges in Ancient Protein Expression and Solubilization

Challenge	Impact on Resurrection	Proposed Solution
Low Expression Yields	Insufficient protein for biophysical or functional characterization	Codon optimization; strong, inducible promoters; chromosomal integration into high-expression loci [30] [49].
Protein Misfolding & Insolubility	Formation of inclusion bodies; loss of biological activity [50] [51].	Co-expression of molecular chaperones [51]; computational design for enhanced stability [52]; solubility tags.
Proteolytic Degradation	Truncated or degraded protein products	Use of protease-deficient host strains; optimization of culture conditions and harvest time [30].
Cellular Toxicity	Poor host cell growth, reduced biomass and protein yield	Weaker promoters, low-copy plasmids [51], and engineering host tolerance via chromosomal rearrangement [49].

Experimental Protocols

Computational Design and Target Optimization

Maximizing the stability of the ancestral protein in silico before moving to the bench is a critical first step.

• Procedure:
  • Sequence Analysis: Perform a BLAST search against the Protein Data Bank (PDB) to identify homologs with known structure and assess domain boundaries [53].
  • Stability Prediction: Utilize computational frameworks that maximize stabilizing interactions, such as hydrogen bond networks, to design superstable protein variants. These frameworks often combine AI-guided structure design with all-atom molecular dynamics simulations [52].
  • Codon Optimization: For the chosen ancestral sequence, optimize codons for your expression host (e.g., E. coli) and order a synthetically gene from a commercial provider, typically cloned into a standard expression vector like pMCSG53 [53].

High-Throughput Expression and Solubility Screening

A high-throughput (HTP) pipeline allows for the rapid testing of multiple constructs and conditions to identify promising candidates [53].

• Materials:

  • Chemically competent E. coli expression cells (e.g., BL21(DE3))
  • 96-well deep-well plates
  • LB broth and antibiotics
  • IPTG (isopropyl β-d-1-thiogalactopyranoside) for induction
  • Lysis buffer (e.g., Tris-HCl pH 8.0, lysozyme, benzonase)
  • SDS-PAGE equipment

• Procedure:

  • Transformation: Transform the synthetic, codon-optimized plasmid into your expression host in a 96-well format [53].
  • Expression:
    • Inoculate 1 mL of LB medium in a deep-well plate and grow cultures to mid-log phase.
    • Induce protein expression with a suitable concentration of IPTG (e.g., 200 µM).
    • Incubate with shaking at a permissive temperature (e.g., 25°C) overnight [53].
  • Solubility Analysis:
    • Harvest cells by centrifugation.
    • Resuspend cell pellets in lysis buffer and lyse using a method suitable for HTP, such as freeze-thaw cycling or chemical lysis.
    • Separate soluble and insoluble fractions by centrifugation.
    • Analyze the total lysate, soluble fraction, and insoluble fraction by SDS-PAGE to assess expression levels and solubility [53].

Diagram 1: HTP screening workflow for identifying soluble protein targets.

Enhancing Solubility via Chaperone Co-expression

If the initial screen reveals insolubility, co-expressing chaperones can assist with proper folding [51].

• Procedure:
  • Chaperone Plasmid: Obtain a plasmid expressing a chaperone system (e.g., GroEL/GroES or DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE).
  • Co-transformation: Co-transform the ancestral protein expression plasmid and the chaperone plasmid into the expression host. Alternatively, use a host strain engineered to overexpress endogenous chaperones.
  • Expression Test: Repeat the small-scale expression and solubility analysis (Protocol 3.2) to evaluate the improvement in soluble yield.

Host Engineering for Enhanced Protein Production

For persistent expression challenges, engineering the host strain can be highly effective.

• Procedure (Based on Cre-loxP in Yeast):
  • Generate Diversity: In a yeast host (e.g., Kluyveromyces marxianus) pre-engineered with loxP sites, induce random chromosomal rearrangements (inversions, translocations) by expressing Cre recombinase [49].
  • Iterative Screening: Use a reporter system (e.g., a leghemoglobin-eGFP fusion) and fluorescence-activated cell sorting (FACS) to iteratively screen for clones with higher recombinant protein production over multiple rounds [49].
  • Characterization: Identify the specific chromosomal rearrangements in high-producing clones and introduce these defined rearrangements into naive strains to create a superior production chassis [49].

Downstream Purification and Analysis

Affinity Purification of Soluble Ancient Proteins

For soluble proteins, affinity chromatography is the most powerful initial purification step [54].

• Materials:

  • Affinity resin (e.g., Ni-NTA for His-tagged proteins, Glutathione Sepharose for GST-tagged proteins)
  • Binding/Wash Buffer (e.g., Phosphate Buffered Saline (PBS) or Tris-buffered saline)
  • Elution Buffer (e.g., 0.1 M Glycine•HCl, pH 2.5-3.0, or imidazole-containing buffer for His-tags)

• Procedure:

  • Equilibration: Equilibrate the affinity column with several column volumes (CV) of binding buffer [54].
  • Binding: Load the clarified cell lysate onto the column, allowing the tagged protein to bind to the immobilized ligand [54].
  • Washing: Wash the column with 5-10 CV of binding buffer to remove non-specifically bound contaminants [54].
  • Elution: Apply elution buffer to dissociate and recover the target protein. For sensitive proteins, immediately neutralize low-pH elution fractions with 1/10 volume of 1 M Tris•HCl, pH 8.5 [54].

Ion Exchange Chromatography for Polishing and Charge Variant Separation

Ion exchange chromatography (IEX) is ideal for further polishing and separating charge variants, such as those caused by deamidation, which may be relevant in ancient proteins [55] [56].

• Materials:

  • Cation (CEX) or Anion (AEX) Exchange resin
  • Low-salt Binding Buffer (e.g., 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0)
  • High-salt Elution Buffer (e.g., 20 mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, with 1 M NaCl)

• Procedure:

  • Sample Preparation: Dialyze or desalt the affinity-purified protein into a low-ionic-strength binding buffer compatible with the IEX step [55].
  • Binding and Elution:
    • Apply the sample to the pre-equilibrated IEX column.
    • Wash with binding buffer until the UV baseline stabilizes.
    • Elute the bound protein using a linear gradient from 0% to 100% high-salt elution buffer over 10-20 CV [55].
  • Analysis: Collect fractions and analyze by SDS-PAGE. Different protein conformations or oligomeric states may elute as distinct peaks [55].

Table 2: Common Elution Buffers for Affinity and Ion Exchange Chromatography

Chromatography Type	Elution Method	Example Buffer	Key Consideration
Affinity	Low pH	0.1 M Glycine•HCl, pH 2.5-3.0 [54]	Neutralize immediately to avoid protein damage.
Affinity	Competitive Ligand	10 mM Reduced Glutathione (for GST-tags) [54]	Gentle, specific elution.
Affinity	High Salt/Chaotropic	2–6 M Guanidine•HCl [54]	Can denature the protein; may require refolding.
Ion Exchange (IEX)	Increasing Ionic Strength	Linear gradient of 0 to 1 M NaCl [55]	Effective for separating charge variants and oligomers.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

The following table details essential materials and their applications in ancient protein resurrection workflows.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ancient Protein Resurrection

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Example Use Case
Codon-Optimized Synthetic Genes	Ensures high translation efficiency in the heterologous host [53].	Starting point for all expression constructs, minimizing translational stalling.
pMCSG53 Vector	E. coli expression vector with an N-terminal, cleavable His-tag [53].	Standardized platform for HTP cloning, expression, and affinity purification.
Chaperone Plasmid Sets	Co-expression of folding assistants (e.g., GroEL/GroES) to reduce aggregation [51].	Boosting soluble yield of recalcitrant ancient proteins that misfold in E. coli.
Ni-NTA Agarose Resin	Immobilized metal affinity chromatography (IMAC) medium for purifying His-tagged proteins [54].	Primary capture and purification step for soluble, tagged proteins.
CRE Recombinase	Enzyme that catalyzes site-specific recombination between loxP sites [49].	Engineering yeast production hosts with enhanced recombinant protein yields.
MonoQ Resin	Strong anion exchange medium for high-resolution separation [55].	Polishing step to separate deamidated charge variants or different oligomeric states.
Protease-Deficient Strains	Host strains with genetic knockouts of major extracellular proteases [30].	Minimizing degradation of secreted proteins in fungal expression systems like A. niger.
22Z-Paricalcitol	22Z-Paricalcitol|C27H44O3	22Z-Paricalcitol is a stereoisomer for research. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO) and is not intended for personal use.
Saxitoxin-13C,15N2	Saxitoxin-13C,15N2 Isotope|RUO|Sodium Channel Blocker

Successfully expressing and solubilizing ancient proteins requires a multi-faceted strategy that integrates computational design, robust HTP screening, and strategic host and pathway engineering. The protocols outlined here, from computational stabilization and chaperone co-expression to advanced chromatographic purification, provide a concrete framework for overcoming the inherent challenges in ancestral protein resurrection. By systematically applying these tools, researchers can reliably produce high-quality ancient proteins, unlocking their potential for evolutionary insights and therapeutic applications.

Mitigating Stability Biases in Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony Reconstructions

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is a foundational technique for probing protein evolution and enabling ancestral protein resurrection. The accuracy of ASR, however, is contingent upon the phylogenetic methods used to infer ancestral states, with Maximum Likelihood (ML) and Maximum Parsimony (MP) being widely employed. These methods are susceptible to specific biases—such as long-branch attraction (LBA) and model misspecification in ML, and increased vulnerability to homoplasy in MP—that can distort the inferred ancestral sequences and compromise the stability and function of resurrected proteins. This Application Note details standardized protocols to identify, quantify, and mitigate these stability biases, ensuring more reliable and biophysically plausible ASR outcomes for downstream biochemical and structural characterization. We provide actionable guidance, workflows, and reagent solutions tailored for researchers in evolutionary biochemistry and structural biology.

In ancestral protein resurrection, the inferred sequence directly determines the conformational energy landscape and biophysical properties—including stability, folding, and function—of the protein to be synthesized and characterized [1]. Biases in the reconstruction process can therefore introduce systematic errors, leading to ancestral proteins that are non-functional, misfolded, or possess aberrant stability, thereby confounding evolutionary interpretations.

• Maximum Likelihood (ML) Biases: ML methods rely on an explicit model of sequence evolution. When this model is incorrectly specified—for example, by assuming uniform rates across sites or an inappropriate substitution matrix—it can lead to statistical inconsistency, where even infinite data do not yield the correct tree. A well-documented bias is long-branch attraction (LBA), where rapidly evolving lineages are incorrectly inferred as closely related [57]. For ancestral reconstruction, this can result in inaccurate predictions at key nodes.
• Maximum Parsimony (MP) Biases: MP seeks the tree requiring the fewest evolutionary changes. This principle, while intuitive, often fails to account for multiple hits at the same site. Consequently, MP is highly susceptible to homoplasy (convergent evolution), which can be misinterpreted as shared ancestry [58]. This is particularly problematic for sequences with high divergence or complex evolutionary histories involving recombination, as it can obscure true phylogenetic signals [59]. The use of Dollo parsimony for gene content reconstruction has been shown to systematically overestimate ancestral gene content, a bias that underscores the potential for parsimony-based methods to misrepresent ancestral states [60].

The following sections outline protocols to mitigate these biases, emphasizing model selection, data curation, and computational validation.

Protocols for Bias Mitigation

Protocol 1: Comprehensive Model Selection for Maximum Likelihood

Objective: To select the most appropriate substitution model for ML analysis to minimize model misspecification bias.

• Data Preparation:

  • Compile a high-quality multiple sequence alignment (MSA) of homologous protein sequences. Visually inspect and trim the MSA to remove poorly aligned regions using tools like TrimAl or Gblocks.
  • Format the alignment for downstream analysis (e.g., PHYLIP, FASTA).

• Model Testing:

  • Use a model testing software package such as ModelTest-NG (for DNA) or ProtTest (for proteins) [59].
  • The software will fit a range of standard substitution models (e.g., JTT, WAG, LG) to your alignment, with or without considerations for rate heterogeneity among sites (+G) and invariable sites (+I).
  • Compare models using the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC). The model with the lowest score is statistically preferred.

• Model Adequacy Assessment (Critical Step):

  • Perform posterior predictive simulations using software like PhyloBayes to check if the chosen model can adequately reproduce key features of the empirical data.
  • If the model fails, consider using more complex mixture models (e.g., CAT in PhyloBayes) or partitioning the alignment by evolutionary rate or domain structure.

• Ancestral Reconstruction:

  • Perform ML-based ancestral reconstruction using the selected model in software such as IQ-TREE, RAxML, or PAML.
  • Record the posterior probabilities for each ancestral state; these provide a measure of confidence at each site.

Protocol 2: Mitigating Parsimony Biases via Model-Based Integration

Objective: To overcome the inherent limitations of MP by integrating it with model-based validation and employing it only in appropriate contexts.

• Parsimony Reconstruction:

  • Reconstruct ancestral sequences using MP with a tool like PAUP* or the parsimony function in PHANGORN (R).
  • Note the number of equally most-parsimonious trees. If multiple trees are found, build a consensus tree.

• Comparative Analysis:

  • Reconstruct the ancestors of the same nodes using the ML protocol above (2.1).
  • Systematically compare the inferred sequences from MP and ML. Pay special attention to sites that differ and cross-reference their posterior probabilities from the ML analysis. Sites with low posterior support in ML that differ in MP may be indications of homoplasy-driven bias.

• Identify & Flag Contentious Sites:

  • Create a list of all sites where MP and ML inferences conflict.
  • Manually inspect the MSA at these sites to assess the plausibility of each reconstruction. Favor the ML inference at sites with high posterior probability and where multiple changes would be required under the MP scenario.

• Explicit Testing for Dollo Bias (for Gene Families):

  • If reconstructing gene family presence/absence, avoid Dollo parsimony due to its proven tendency to overestimate ancestral gene content [60].
  • Use a probabilistic framework (e.g., BppAncestor) that allows for multiple gains, which provides a more realistic model for sequence-based data.

Protocol 3: Quantifying the Impact of Recombination on Stability

Objective: To identify and account for recombination events that can disrupt phylogenetic signal and lead to incorrect ancestral sequences with compromised folding stability.

• Recombination Detection:

  • Use recombination detection programs (RDPs) such as RDP5, GARD, or ClonalFrameML on your MSA.
  • Identify statistically supported breakpoints that partition the alignment into regions with different phylogenetic histories.

• Stability Prediction for Recombinants:

  • In silico recombination: Simulate recombination between parental sequences from your dataset at the identified breakpoints.
  • Use protein folding stability prediction software (e.g., FoldX, Rosetta, I-TASSER) to calculate the predicted change in free energy (ΔΔG) for the resulting chimeric sequences.
  • Compare the stability distributions of the recombinant proteins to their parents. Studies suggest that recombination can generate proteins with stability both within and outside the parental range, promoting diversity but also risking destabilization [59].

• Partitioned Phylogenetic Analysis:

  • If recombination is detected, split the MSA into its non-recombining partitions.
  • Reconstruct the phylogenetic tree and ancestral sequences separately for each partition.
  • This approach acknowledges the possibility of different evolutionary histories for different protein domains or regions.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 1: Essential Computational Tools and Reagents for Mitigating Stability Biases in ASR.

Tool/Reagent	Function/Benefit	Application Context
IQ-TREE / RAxML	Efficient ML tree inference and ancestral reconstruction with model testing.	Core phylogenetics; Protocol 1.
PhyloBayes	Bayesian MCMC sampling with complex mixture models (e.g., CAT).	Model adequacy checking; robust inference under model violation.
PAUP* / PHANGORN	Software for conducting Maximum Parsimony analysis.	Protocol 2; generating comparative MP hypotheses.
RDP5 Software Suite	Integrated tool for detecting and visualizing recombination events.	Protocol 3; identifying phylogenetic breakpoints.
FoldX	Fast, computational prediction of protein folding stability (ΔΔG).	Quantifying stability effects of mutations/recombinations; Protocol 3.
PAML (CodeML)	ML analysis for codon models, detecting selection, and ancestral reconstruction.	Advanced, model-based ASR under different evolutionary regimes.
Ancestral ASR Chimeras	Experimentally testing stability of inferred ancestors vs. modern proteins.	Functional validation of resurrected proteins [7].
Ortetamine, (S)-	Ortetamine, (S)-, CAS:1188412-81-8, MF:C10H15N, MW:149.23 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Data Presentation and Analysis

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Phylogenetic Methods and Their Associated Stability Biases.

Method	Core Principle	Key Strengths	Inherent Biases & Weaknesses	Recommended Mitigation Strategies
Maximum Likelihood (ML)	Finds tree & model parameters that maximize probability of observing data.	Statistical power; accounts for branch length; provides confidence estimates.	Model misspecification: Can be inconsistent if model is wrong (e.g., LBA) [57]. Computationally intensive.	Protocol 1: Rigorous model testing (AIC/BIC) and adequacy checks. Use of complex mixture models.
Maximum Parsimony (MP)	Minimizes total number of character state changes.	Computationally fast; simple, intuitive principle; no explicit model.	Long-branch attraction: Highly susceptible to homoplasy [58] [57]. Ignores multiple hits. Dollo overestimation [60].	Protocol 2: Use for small, low-divergence datasets only. Always validate against ML results on the same data.
Bayesian Inference	Estimates posterior distribution of trees/parameters using prior knowledge & data.	Quantifies uncertainty in all parameters; robust with complex models.	Choice of priors can influence results. MCMC convergence can be slow.	Use mixed prior models; run multiple chains; check effective sample sizes and convergence diagnostics.
Distance-Based (e.g., NJ)	Clusters sequences based on pairwise evolutionary distances.	Extremely fast; good for large datasets and initial exploration.	Compresses information from alignment to distances; step-wise algorithm may not find global optimum.	Useful for initial data exploration but not recommended for final, publishable ASR.

Workflow Visualization

The following diagram, generated using Graphviz DOT language, illustrates the integrated experimental workflow for mitigating stability biases in ancestral reconstruction, from data preparation to final selection of the ancestral candidate for resurrection.

Diagram Title: Integrated ASR Bias Mitigation Workflow

Diagram Title: Impact of Bias on Protein Energy Landscape

The faithful resurrection of ancestral proteins demands phylogenetic inferences that are not only statistically robust but also biophysically plausible. By implementing the protocols outlined in this article—rigorous model selection for ML, comparative validation against MP, and proactive screening for destabilizing recombination—researchers can significantly mitigate stability biases. The integrated workflow provides a defendable path from sequence alignment to a single, well-supported ancestral sequence, thereby increasing the confidence and reproducibility of subsequent biochemical and structural analyses. As ASR continues to illuminate protein evolution and provide novel reagents for biotechnology and drug development, a disciplined approach to managing reconstruction biases will be paramount.

Optimizing Resurrection with Bayesian Sampling and Extant Sequence Cross-Validation

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) is a powerful phylogenetic method used to infer the sequences of ancient biomolecules, enabling researchers to study molecular evolution and resurrect ancient proteins in the laboratory. The accuracy of these reconstructions is paramount, as it directly impacts the validity of downstream biochemical and functional analyses. This application note details a integrated framework that combines Bayesian sampling methods with a robust validation technique—extant sequence cross-validation—to optimize the resurrection process. Developed within the context of ancestral protein resurrection laboratory protocols, this approach provides researchers with a statistically rigorous methodology for assessing and improving the accuracy of phylogenetic inferences, ultimately leading to more reliable resurrected proteins for drug discovery and basic research.

Core Methodologies

Extant Sequence Cross-Validation: A Framework for Validation

Extant Sequence Reconstruction (ESR) serves as a powerful cross-validation method to evaluate the accuracy of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) methodologies when the true ancestral sequences are unknowable [61].

• Principle: The core principle of ESR is to treat each known extant (modern) sequence in a multiple sequence alignment as if it were an unknown ancestral node. Standard ASR methodology is used to reconstruct this sequence based on the remaining extant sequences and the phylogenetic tree. The reconstructed sequence is then compared to the known true extant sequence, allowing for direct quantification of reconstruction accuracy [61].
• Evaluation Metrics: Accuracy can be measured using:
  • Sequence Identity: The fraction of correctly predicted amino acid residues.
  • Biophysical Similarity: Measures beyond simple identity, assessing whether the reconstructed sequence encodes proteins with similar physicochemical properties to the true sequence, even if the primary sequences differ [61].

A key finding from ESR validation is that the average probability of a reconstructed sequence is a good estimator of accuracy only when the evolutionary model is accurate or overparameterized. Notably, more accurate phylogenetic models can sometimes produce reconstructions with a lower overall probability but higher biophysical similarity to the true ancestor, indicating that probability alone is an insufficient metric for comparing models [61].

Bayesian Sampling for Uncertainty Quantification

Bayesian methods address the inherent uncertainty in ASR by treating model parameters, such as branch lengths and substitution rates, as probability distributions rather than fixed values.

• Sampling/Importance Resampling (S/IR): This Bayesian sampling technique is particularly useful for posterior probability updates without requiring costly re-computation [62]. The procedure is as follows:
  • Generate Samples: Draw a large set of samples (e.g., of phylogenetic model parameters) from a prior distribution or a simpler sampling distribution g(θ).
  • Calculate Importance Weights: For each sample, calculate its importance weight based on the likelihood of the observed data. The weight is defined as ωi = f(θi) / g(θi), where f(θi) is the unnormalized target posterior distribution. These are normalized to probabilities qi = ωi / Σωj [62].
  • Resample: Draw a new set of samples from the initial set according to the probabilities qi. This new set will be distributed approximately according to the target posterior distribution [62].
• Advantages for ASR: This approach allows researchers to efficiently generate a distribution of possible ancestral sequences rather than a single "most probable" sequence. Studies have shown that a significant fraction of sequences sampled from this posterior distribution may have fewer errors than the single most probable (SMP) sequence reconstruction [61]. This makes S/IR valuable for propagating uncertainty through to downstream functional predictions.

Integrated Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the synergistic integration of Bayesian sampling and extant sequence cross-validation within a single optimized resurrection workflow.

Experimental Protocols

Protocol: Extant Sequence Cross-Validation

This protocol is used to assess the performance of different evolutionary models prior to final ancestral inference.

• Input Data Preparation: Begin with a curated multiple sequence alignment (MSA) of homologous protein sequences.
• Iterative Sequence Removal: For each extant sequence i in the MSA:
  • Temporarily remove sequence i from the alignment, creating a partial MSA.
  • Reconstruct the sequence at the position of i using standard ASR inference (e.g., maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods) under a chosen phylogenetic model.
• Comparison to True Sequence: Compare the reconstructed sequence to the true, withheld sequence i.
• Accuracy Calculation: Calculate accuracy metrics (e.g., sequence identity, biophysical similarity scores) for this reconstruction.
• Model Evaluation: Repeat steps 2-4 for all extant sequences and for all candidate phylogenetic models. The model that yields the highest average accuracy metrics across all ESR trials is selected for the final ASR analysis.

Protocol: Bayesian Sampling with S/IR for ASR

This protocol leverages S/IR to generate a robust posterior distribution of ancestral sequences.

• Define Priors and Model: Specify prior distributions for all phylogenetic model parameters, θ (e.g., substitution rates, tree topology priors, branch lengths).
• Generate Initial Samples: Draw a large number of samples {θi} from the prior distribution, pr(θ). This is the sampling density g(θ).
• Compute Likelihoods and Weights: For each parameter sample θi, compute the likelihood of the complete MSA, L(θi). Calculate the importance weight for each sample as ωi = L(θi) * pr(θi) / g(θi). Since g(θ) = pr(θ), this simplifies to ωi = L(θi). Normalize the weights to obtain probabilities: qi = ωi / Σωj.
• Resample: Draw a new set of N parameter samples from the initial set {θi}, where each sample θi has a probability qi of being selected. This new set {θ*i} represents samples from the posterior distribution pr(θ | D).
• Reconstruct Ancestral Distributions: For each posterior parameter sample θ*i, reconstruct the ancestral sequence of interest. The collection of these sequences constitutes the posterior distribution of ancestral sequences, from which the SMP sequence or a set of highly probable sequences can be selected for resurrection.

Data Presentation

Table 1: A quantitative comparison of different phylogenetic models evaluated using Extant Sequence Cross-Validation on a sample dataset. The best-performing model for each metric is highlighted.

Phylogenetic Model	Average Sequence Identity (%)	Average Probability	Biophysical Similarity Index	Recommended for Final ASR?
LG+Γ	88.5	0.92	0.95	Yes
JTT+Γ	87.1	0.93	0.94	Yes
WAG	85.2	0.89	0.91	No
Poisson	78.9	0.81	0.83	No

Comparison of Reconstruction Sampling Strategies

Table 2: Evaluating different sequence selection strategies from the Bayesian posterior distribution. Sampling multiple sequences can provide candidates that are biophysically closer to the true ancestor than the Single Most Probable (SMP) sequence.

Sampling Strategy	Description	Fraction of Residues Correct (vs. True Ancestor)	Notes
Single Most Probable (SMP)	The single sequence with the highest posterior probability.	0.89	Often used, but may not be the most accurate.
Random Sample (from Posterior)	A single sequence sampled from the posterior distribution.	0.88 ± 0.03	Can yield sequences with fewer errors than SMP [61].
Consensus of Samples	The consensus sequence from multiple posterior samples.	0.90	Increases robustness by averaging out uncertainties.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential reagents, software, and materials for implementing the described protocols in a research setting.

Item Name	Function / Application	Specifications / Examples
Urea Extraction Buffer	Effectively disrupts cell membranes in preserved soft tissues to liberate proteins for subsequent analysis [63].	8M Urea, 50mM Tris-HCl, pH 8.0
LC-FAIMS-MS Setup	For separating and identifying complex protein mixtures from ancient or precious samples; increases protein identifications by up to 40% [63].	Liquid Chromatography coupled to High-Field Asymmetric-Waveform Ion Mobility Spectrometry and Mass Spectrometry
Molecular Scissors	A suite of restriction enzymes and cloning reagents used to insert synthesized ancestral gene sequences into modern expression vectors [64].	Type IIS restriction enzymes (e.g., Golden Gate Assembly)
Bayesian Sampling Software	Tools to perform S/IR and other Bayesian phylogenetic analyses.	BEAST2, RevBayes, PyMC3
Phylogenetic Model Suite	Software containing a wide array of evolutionary models for ASR and ESR.	IQ-TREE, PhyloBayes, RAxML

Workflow Visualization

The logical relationship between the core components of an optimized resurrection pipeline, from sequence data to a resurrected protein, is summarized below.

Assessing Accuracy and Comparing Ancestral vs. Modern Proteins

Validating Reconstructions with Extant Sequence Reconstruction (ESR) Cross-Validation

Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) has become an indispensable tool for analyzing ancient biomolecules and elucidating molecular evolution mechanisms. Despite its widespread application, a fundamental challenge persists: the accuracy of ASR is generally unknown because resurrected proteins cannot be compared to the true ancestors. To address this critical validation gap, researchers have developed Extant Sequence Reconstruction (ESR), a cross-validation method that reconstructs each extant sequence in an alignment using standard ASR methodology [65].

ESR leverages a fundamental property of time-reversible evolutionary models: there is no distinction between ancestor and descendant. This allows researchers to effectively invert the traditional ASR calculation, using the same probabilistic methodology, phylogeny, alignment, and evolutionary model to reconstruct modern protein sequences with known true sequences [65]. Because extant reconstructions are calculated identically to ancestral reconstructions, they share the same accuracies, limitations, biases, and statistical characteristics, thereby providing a direct test of ASR methodology where the ground truth is known [65].

Theoretical Foundation and Validation Principles

The ESR Cross-Validation Framework

The core principle of ESR involves systematically holding out each extant sequence in an alignment and reconstructing it using the remaining sequences and the standard phylogenetic pipeline. This approach generates empirical accuracy metrics by comparing reconstructions to known true sequences, enabling quantitative assessment of reconstruction quality [65].

A key insight from ESR validation is that the relationship between model quality and reconstruction accuracy is more nuanced than previously assumed. While a common measure of reconstruction quality is the average probability of the single most probable (SMP) sequence (equivalent to the expected fraction of correct amino acids), this metric proves unreliable for comparing reconstructions from different models [65]. Surprisingly, more accurate phylogenetic models often produce SMP reconstructions with lower probability and fewer correct residues, yet these reconstructions demonstrate greater biophysical similarity to true ancestors [65]. This paradox suggests that better evolutionary models tend to make more biophysically conservative mistakes rather than fewer non-conservative errors.

Quantitative Validation Metrics from ESR Studies

Table 1: Key Metrics for Evaluating Reconstruction Accuracy Using ESR

Metric	Interpretation	Validation Insight
Sequence Identity	Fraction of identical amino acids between reconstructed and true sequence	Better models may yield lower identity but higher biophysical similarity [65]
Average Probability	Expected fraction of correct amino acids in SMP reconstruction	Reliable within-model measure but poor for cross-model comparison [65]
Reconstruction Entropy	Measure of uncertainty in ancestral state inference	Better indicator of model quality; estimates log-probability of true sequence [65]
Biophysical Similarity	Structural/functional conservation despite sequence differences	More accurate models produce reconstructions with higher biophysical similarity to true sequences [65]

ESR analysis has revealed that a significant proportion of sequences sampled from the reconstruction distribution may have fewer errors than the SMP sequence, despite the SMP having the lowest expected error of all possible sequences. This finding emphasizes the value of sampling multiple sequences from the reconstruction distribution rather than relying exclusively on the SMP sequence for analyzing ancestral protein properties [65].

ESR Experimental Protocol

Computational Workflow for ESR Validation

The ESR validation process follows a structured computational pipeline that mirrors standard ASR methodology while incorporating the cross-validation component.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for ESR Implementation

Reagent/Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function in ESR Workflow
Sequence Alignment Tools	MAFFT, ClustalOmega	Generate multiple sequence alignments from homologous sequences [66]
Phylogenetic Reconstruction	RAxML, IQ-TREE	Construct phylogenetic trees from sequence alignments [15]
Ancestral Reconstruction	LAZARUS, FireProtASR	Infer ancestral states at phylogenetic nodes [15]
Evolutionary Models	codeml, autoregressive generative models	Model sequence evolution; advanced models account for epistasis [15] [67]
Biophysical Characterization	Molecular dynamics simulations, spectroscopic analysis	Validate structural and functional properties of reconstructed sequences [68] [66]

Step-by-Step Protocol for ESR Implementation

Phase 1: Dataset Preparation and Alignment

• Collect homologous sequences from public databases using BLAST, retaining sequences with 30-90% sequence identity to target and lengths within 80-120% of target protein length [15].
• Perform multiple sequence alignment using MAFFT or ClustalOmega with manual correction of insertion and gap positions as required [66].
• Apply quality filters to remove poorly aligned regions and sequences with excessive gaps.

Phase 2: Phylogenetic Reconstruction

• Construct phylogenetic trees using maximum likelihood methods (e.g., RAxML) with the best-fit evolution matrix suggested by model testing tools [15].
• Root trees appropriately using methods such as the minimum ancestral deviation algorithm or outgroup rooting [15].
• Assess tree robustness with bootstrap analysis (typically 50-100 replicates) [15].

Phase 3: Extant Sequence Reconstruction

• Systematically hold out each extant sequence from the alignment while using the remaining sequences for reconstruction.
• Reconstruct held-out sequences using probabilistic inference methods (maximum likelihood or Bayesian approaches) with appropriate evolutionary models [65].
• Generate both SMP sequences and posterior probability distributions for each site in the reconstruction [65].

Phase 4: Accuracy Assessment

• Calculate sequence identity by comparing reconstructed sequences to known true sequences.
• Compute average probabilities for SMP reconstructions as the average over sites of the probabilities of the amino acids in the sequence [65].
• Assess biophysical similarity using structural modeling and molecular dynamics simulations to evaluate conservation of structural properties despite sequence differences [65] [66].

Advanced Methodological Considerations

Model Selection and Epistasis Accounting

Traditional evolutionary models assume sites evolve independently, neglecting epistasis (context-dependence of mutations). Recent advances address this limitation through autoregressive generative models that learn constraints associated with structure and function from large ensembles of evolutionarily related proteins [67]. These models can be extended to describe sequence evolution over time while accounting for epistatic effects, potentially improving reconstruction accuracy [67].

ESR validation has demonstrated that model selection critically influences reconstruction accuracy. The entropy of the reconstructed distribution serves as a more reliable indicator of model quality than the average probability of the SMP sequence, as it provides a better estimate of the log-probability of the true sequence [65].

From Sequence Reconstruction to Biophysical Validation

While ESR begins with computational sequence reconstruction, comprehensive validation requires experimental biophysical characterization:

• Gene synthesis and protein expression of reconstructed extant sequences
• Biophysical characterization using spectroscopic methods (e.g., UV-Vis, fluorescence, CD spectroscopy) to assess structural properties [68]
• Functional assays to evaluate enzymatic activity, ligand binding, or other relevant functions
• Stability assessments including thermal denaturation experiments to determine melting temperatures [66]

This integrated approach allows researchers to connect sequence-level accuracy with structural and functional conservation, providing a comprehensive validation framework for ASR methodology [65] [66].

Application Notes for Drug Development

For researchers in pharmaceutical development, ESR validation offers critical insights for engineering stable enzymes and therapeutic proteins:

• Identify stable protein scaffolds through reconstruction of thermostable ancestors [66]
• Engineer proteins with enhanced properties by leveraging evolutionary insights from reconstructed sequences [7]
• Reduce experimental screening burden by focusing on biophysically validated reconstructed variants [15] [66]

Recent applications demonstrate how ASR-generated proteins can facilitate structural analysis of challenging drug targets, such as modular polyketide synthases, by producing stabilized variants amenable to high-resolution structural determination [7]. These approaches enable deeper mechanistic insights into complex biological systems relevant to pharmaceutical development.

ESR cross-validation represents a robust methodological framework for evaluating and improving ancestral reconstruction methods, ultimately enhancing the reliability of resurrections for evolutionary studies, protein engineering, and drug development applications.

The development of subtype-selective modulators for G protein-coupled receptors (GPCRs), such as adrenergic receptors (ARs) and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs), represents a formidable challenge in drug discovery due to the high structural and sequence conservation within these receptor subfamilies [69]. This application note details a structured approach, combining ancestral protein resurrection and structure-guided engineering, to engineer novel aminergic toxins with enhanced receptor specificity. These engineered toxins provide powerful molecular tools for basic neuropharmacological research and promising leads for therapeutic development in conditions ranging from Parkinson's disease to inflammatory pain [69] [12].

Background & Engineering Challenge

The Specificity Problem in Aminergic Receptor Systems

Aminergic GPCRs regulate critical physiological processes, including smooth muscle contraction, heart rate, and cognitive functions. The high structural conservation within receptor subfamilies makes achieving subtype selectivity exceptionally difficult [69]. For instance, while α2A-AR blockade can reduce inflammatory responses, α2B-AR activation increases blood pressure. Similarly, M4 mAChR in the central nervous system is a target for Parkinson's disease, whereas M2 mAChR regulates heart rate. Non-selective modulation can therefore lead to undesirable side effects, necessitating highly specific ligands [69].

Snake Venom Toxins as a Structural Scaffold

Three-finger toxins (3FTxs) from mamba venoms provide an ideal structural starting point. They possess a stable, three-looped scaffold that can be engineered for novel functions. Despite high sequence identity (70-98%), natural aminergic toxins exhibit remarkably diverse pharmacological profiles, from the highly selective MT7 (specific for M1 mAChR) to the promiscuous MT3, which binds multiple receptors [12]. This natural diversity suggests that the 3FTx scaffold is tolerant to extensive functional optimization.

Experimental Design & Workflow

The integrated methodology combines evolutionary biology with structural biophysics to engineer receptor-specific toxins, as outlined below.

Figure 1. Integrated workflow for engineering receptor-specific aminergic toxins, combining ancestral protein resurrection with structure-guided engineering and functional validation.

Key Protocols

Protocol 1: Ancestral Toxin Resurrection & Phylogenetic Analysis

This protocol enables the reconstruction of potential ancestral toxin sequences, creating a functionally diverse library from a minimal set of variants [12].

• Step 1: Sequence Alignment & Curation

  • Collect and align amino acid sequences of extant mamba aminergic toxins (MT1-MT7, ρ-Da1a, ρ-Da1b, MTα, MTβ).
  • Use MTLP toxins from Naja kaouthia as an outgroup for phylogenetic rooting.
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using ClustalW or MAFFT with default parameters.

• Step 2: Phylogenetic Tree Reconstruction

  • Reconstruct the maximum likelihood (ML) tree using tools such as PhyML or RAxML.
  • Apply the JTT amino acid substitution model with gamma-distributed rate variation.
  • Assess branch support with 1000 bootstrap replicates.

• Step 3: Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

  • Compute ancestral sequences at defined internal nodes of the phylogenetic tree using codeml from the PAML package or similar software.
  • Critical Note: For ambiguous sites with posterior probability < 0.9, select the most probable residue based on phylogenetic context. In the seminal study, 92% of reconstructed sites showed high confidence (P > 0.9) [12].

• Step 4: Chemical Synthesis & Refolding

  • Synthesize ancestral toxin sequences via solid-phase peptide synthesis using Fmoc chemistry.
  • Purify linear peptides by reverse-phase HPLC.
  • Refold peptides by rapid dilution into 0.1 M Tris-HCl, pH 8.0, containing 1 mM glutathione (reduced) and 0.1 mM glutathione (oxidized).
  • Isulate correctly folded toxins using preparative HPLC and verify structure by circular dichroism spectroscopy, confirming characteristic β-sheet minima at ~215 nm [12].

Protocol 2: Structure-Guided Engineering of Specificity

This protocol utilizes high-resolution structural data to rationally engineer toxin specificity [69].

• Step 1: Complex Formation & Cryo-EM Structure Determination

  • Engineer recombinant receptors with fusion partners (e.g., mBril between TM5 and TM6) and a C-terminal K3-ALFA tag to facilitate complex stabilization.
  • Fuse MT3 toxin to the receptor N-terminus to promote complex formation.
  • Add "glue" molecules (e.g., "4-9," "6-10," or "6-12" glue, where numbers indicate linker lengths) and 1B3 Fab fragment during purification to enhance complex stability for structural studies.
  • Collect cryo-EM data and reconstruct 3D densities at 3.2-3.6 Ã… resolution sufficient for model building.

• Step 2: Analysis of Toxin-Receptor Interface

  • Identify key interaction residues in the toxin-receptor interface, focusing on finger loop 2, which inserts deepest into the receptor core.
  • Map contact residues on both toxin and receptor, noting that extracellular loops ECL2 and ECL3, along with TM helices 5, 6, and 7, form critical interactions.

• Step 3: Computational Design & In Vitro Validation

  • Utilize molecular docking and free energy calculations to design toxin variants that enhance shape complementarity with target receptors and introduce clashes with non-target receptors.
  • Express and purify variant proteins from E. coli systems.
  • Validate binding affinity and specificity using radioligand displacement assays on purified receptor subtypes.

Key Results & Data Analysis

Pharmacological Profiling of Engineered Toxins

Engineered toxins demonstrated significant improvements in receptor specificity, as quantified by binding affinity assays.

Table 1: Binding Affinity Profiles of Natural and Engineered Aminergic Toxins [12]

Toxin Name	α1A-AR	α2A-AR	α2C-AR	M4 mAChR	Primary Specificity
MT3 (Natural)	++++	++++	+++	++++	Non-selective
AncTx1	++++	+	+	+	α1A-AR selective
AncTx5	+	++++	++++	+	Pan-α2-AR potent
Engineered MT3 (M4-specific)	+	+	+	++++	M4 mAChR selective

Affinity key: + (Low: IC₅₀ > 1 µM), ++ (Moderate: ~100 nM), +++ (High: ~10 nM), ++++ (Very High: < 5 nM). Data synthesized from [12].

Structural Determinants of Specificity

Structural analysis revealed critical insights into the molecular basis of toxin specificity.

Table 2: Key Structural Features Governing Toxin-Receptor Recognition [69]

Structural Element	Role in Recognition	Engineering Strategy
Finger Loop 2 (Tip)	Deeply inserts into orthosteric pocket; residue R34 is critical for antagonism.	Fine-tune side chain chemistry to exploit differences in receptor vestibule charge.
Finger Loop 1	Positioned between TM5 and TM6 of target receptors.	Modify to enhance contacts with non-conserved receptor regions.
Toxin Backbone Conformation	Adopts a "standing" posture with deep insertion, unlike the "lying" posture of MT7.	Maintain core scaffold rigidity to preserve general binding mode.
ECL2 and TM7	Undergo outward displacement (2-3 Ã…) to accommodate toxin binding.	Target engineering to regions contacting these flexible receptor elements.

The Scientist's Toolkit

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Aminergic Toxin Engineering

Reagent / Tool	Function / Application	Specifications / Notes
Recombinant GPCRs	Structural and binding studies.	Engineered with fusion partners (e.g., mBril) for complex stabilization [69].
"Glue" Molecules	Stabilize receptor-toxin complexes for cryo-EM.	Bifunctional linkers with defined linker lengths (e.g., "6-10") [69].
K3-ALFA Tag	Facile purification and immobilization of receptor complexes.	Provides a high-affinity binding site for nanobody-based purification [69].
1B3 Fab Fragment	Aids particle orientation and improves resolution in cryo-EM.	Used as a fiducial marker during single-particle analysis [69].
Ancestral Toxin Library	Provides a functionally rich starting point for engineering.	A minimal library of 6 AncTxs can recapitulate a wide affinity spectrum [12].

Concluding Remarks

This case study demonstrates that integrating ancestral protein resurrection with structure-guided engineering provides a powerful framework for developing subtype-selective GPCR ligands. The engineered toxin variants, such as the α1A-AR selective AncTx1 and M4 mAChR selective MT3 variants, serve as both valuable research tools and promising therapeutic leads. The detailed protocols and reagent toolkit provided herein offer a replicable roadmap for researchers aiming to tackle the longstanding challenge of achieving specificity among highly conserved GPCR subfamilies.

Dicer enzymes are multidomain ribonucleases that are conserved in most eukaryotes and are essential for processing RNA interference (RNAi) precursors, including microRNAs (miRNAs) and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) [70] [71]. A key functional differentiator among Dicer proteins across species is the activity of its N-terminal helicase domain. In many invertebrates and plants, the helicase domain exhibits ATP hydrolysis (ATPase) activity, which is often stimulated by double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) and is critical for a robust antiviral RNAi response [70] [72]. In contrast, and despite the presence of conserved ATPase motifs, the helicase domain of human Dicer (hDicer) has historically been characterized as lacking ATPase function, correlating with a more subdued role in direct antiviral defense in vertebrates [70] [72]. This case study details how ancestral protein reconstruction (APR) was employed to trace the evolutionary trajectory of this functional loss, providing a protocol for using APR to investigate protein evolution.

Background: The Dicer Helicase Enigma

The functional dichotomy of Dicer's helicase domain is evident when comparing invertebrates and vertebrates. Drosophila melanogaster Dicer-2 (dmDcr2) requires its helicase domain to bind and processively cleave long viral and endogenous dsRNAs into siRNAs, a process fueled by ATP hydrolysis [70]. Similarly, Caenorhabditis elegans Dicer-1 (ceDCR-1) needs a functional helicase for long dsRNA processing [70]. Conversely, Homo sapiens Dicer (hsDcr) primarily functions in an ATP-independent manner, using its platform/PAZ domain to bind and distributively cleave pre-miRNAs [70]. It has been hypothesized that in vertebrates, the role of sensing viral dsRNA was supplanted by the RIG-I-like receptor (RLR) family of helicases, which trigger interferon-mediated antiviral immunity [70] [72]. This case study investigates whether the loss of Dicer's ATPase function was a passive consequence of RLR competition or an active evolutionary event.

Experimental Objectives and Workflow

The primary objective was to resurrect ancestral Dicer helicase domains and biochemically characterize them to determine when and how ATPase function was lost during animal evolution.

Table 1: Key Research Questions and Experimental Approaches

Research Question	Experimental Approach
When was ATPase function lost in the animal lineage?	Phylogenetic analysis and ancestral sequence reconstruction of the HEL-DUF283 domain [70].
What was the biochemical mechanism behind the loss?	Biochemical assays (ATPase, dsRNA binding) on resurrected ancestral proteins [70].
Can ATPase function be resurrected in vertebrate Dicer?	Site-directed mutagenesis of the vertebrate ancestral Dicer based on ancient sequence data [70].

Figure 1: Overall experimental workflow for tracing Dicer evolution, from phylogenetic analysis to biochemical validation.

Protocols and Methodologies

Protocol: Phylogenetic Analysis and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Objective: To infer the evolutionary relationships of animal Dicers and reconstruct the sequences of ancient helicase-DUF283 (HEL-DUF) domains [70].

Procedure:

• Sequence Collection: Retrieve animal Dicer protein sequences from NCBI databases. Truncate sequences to isolate the helicase domain and DUF283 (HEL-DUF) [70].
• Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA): Use software such as MAFFT or Clustal Omega to generate an MSA of the HEL-DUF sequences. Manually curate the alignment to ensure accuracy [70] [1].
• Phylogenetic Tree Inference: Construct a Maximum Likelihood (ML) phylogenetic tree from the MSA using software like IQ-TREE or RAxML. Employ statistical measures (e.g., bootstrapping with 100-1000 replicates) to assess node support [70] [1].
• Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR): Using the inferred ML tree and the MSA, reconstruct the amino acid sequences at key ancestral nodes (e.g., AncD1D2, AncD1, AncVertebrate) with ASR software such as CodeML (PAML) or HyPhy. The marginal probability method is typically used, which calculates the most probable amino acid for each site at each node [70] [1].

Protocol: Biochemical Assay for ATPase Activity

Objective: To quantify the ATP hydrolysis capability of resurrected ancestral Dicer helicase domains [70] [72].

Procedure:

• Protein Purification: Express and purify the reconstructed ancestral HEL-DUF proteins (e.g., using an E. coli expression system with a His-tag for affinity chromatography) [70].
• Reaction Setup: For a low-turnover assay, prepare a reaction mixture containing:
  • Reaction Buffer: (e.g., 30 mM HEPES-KOH pH 7.4, 1.5 mM MgAc, 100 mM KAc, 5% glycerol, 2 mM DTT).
  • ATP Substrate: 2 nM of [γ³²P]-ATP (or a non-radioactive ATP-regenerating system for a malachite green assay).
  • Protein: Equimolar concentration of protein to ATP (e.g., 2 nM) or a higher concentration (e.g., 50-250 nM) for kinetic studies [72].
  • Cofactor: 1.5 mM Mg²⁺.
  • Stimulant (optional): 50 nM of blunt-ended dsRNA (e.g., 50 bp) to test for dsRNA-stimulated activity [70].
• Incubation and Termination: Incubate the reaction at 30°C for a defined period (e.g., up to 2 hours). Terminate the reaction by adding an equal volume of 0.5 M EDTA [72].
• Product Analysis:
  • For [γ³²P]-ATP: Separate the hydrolyzed inorganic phosphate (³²Pi) from ATP using thin-layer chromatography (TLC) on polyethyleneimine (PEI) cellulose plates. Visualize and quantify the ³²Pi spots using a phosphorimager [72].
  • For Malachite Green Assay: Measure the amount of free phosphate released by adding a malachite green reagent and reading the absorbance at 620-660 nm. Compare to a phosphate standard curve.
• Kinetic Analysis: Determine Michaelis-Menten constants (Kₘ and Vₘₐₓ) by performing the assay with varying ATP concentrations (e.g., 0-500 µM) [70].

Protocol: dsRNA Binding Affinity Measurement

Objective: To determine the binding affinity (K𝒹) of ancestral Dicer helicase domains for dsRNA.

Procedure:

• dsRNA Preparation: Synthesize a defined, blunt-ended dsRNA (e.g., 50 bp). A fluorescently labeled dsRNA can be used for ease of detection.
• Electrophoretic Mobility Shift Assay (EMSA):
  • Incubate a fixed concentration of labeled dsRNA with increasing concentrations of the purified ancestral HEL-DUF protein.
  • Run the protein-RNA complexes on a native polyacrylamide gel in a low-ionic-strength buffer (e.g., 0.5x TBE) at 4°C to preserve complex integrity.
  • Visualize the shifted complexes (bound RNA) and free RNA using a fluorescence scanner or autoradiography.
• Data Analysis: Quantify the fraction of bound RNA at each protein concentration. Fit the data to a binding isotherm equation to calculate the dissociation constant (K𝒹) [70].

Key Findings and Data Analysis

Evolutionary Trajectory of ATPase Function

APR revealed an early gene duplication event, giving rise to Dicer-1 (AncD1) and Dicer-2 (AncD2) clades. Biochemical analysis of the resurrected proteins showed a clear decline in ATPase function leading to its loss in the vertebrate ancestor [70].

Table 2: Biochemical Characterization of Resurrected Ancestral Dicer Helicase Domains

Ancestral Node	ATPase Activity	dsRNA-Stimulated ATPase	Key Biochemical Characteristics
AncD1D2 (Ancient Animal Ancestor)	High	Yes	High basal ATPase activity; strong stimulation by dsRNA via increased ATP affinity (decreased Kₘ) [70].
AncDeuterostome D1	Lower	Reduced	Lower dsRNA binding affinity; retained some ATPase activity [70].
AncVertebrate D1	Undetectable	No	Very low dsRNA affinity; ATPase activity was lost [70].
hsDcr (Extant Human)	Undetectable (under standard assays)	No	Recent studies show very low, detectable ATPase activity under highly sensitive, low-turnover conditions [72].

Resurrecting ATPase Function in Vertebrate Dicer

The study attempted to "resurrect" ATPase activity in the vertebrate Dicer ancestor (AncVertebrate D1) [70].

• Initial Failure: Reverting only the amino acids in the immediate ATP hydrolysis pocket (Walker A and B motifs) was insufficient to restore function.
• Successful Rescue: Introducing additional substitutions at sites distant from the active site successfully rescued ATPase activity. These distal mutations were critical for coupling dsRNA binding to the active conformation of the helicase domain, primarily by restoring affinity for ATP [70].

Figure 2: Logical relationship showing that loss of function was due to disrupted allosteric coupling, which required reverting distal sites to rescue.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Reagents and Resources for Dicer Ancestral Reconstruction Studies

Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Example / Note
HEL-DUF283 Constructs	Core subject for biochemical assays; includes ancestral and extant variants [70].	Codon-optimized genes for expression in E. coli or insect cell systems (e.g., baculovirus) [70] [73].
ATPase Assay Kit	Quantifying ATP hydrolysis activity.	Malachite green phosphate assay kit; or [γ³²P]-ATP for high-sensitivity detection [70] [72].
Defined dsRNA Substrates	Stimulant for ATPase activity; ligand for binding assays.	Chemically synthesized blunt-ended dsRNA (e.g., 50 bp) [70].
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kit	Engineering point mutations in ancestral constructs for functional rescue studies.	Used to revert specific residues to inferred ancestral states [70].
Fast Protein Liquid Chromatography (FPLC)	High-resolution purification of recombinant proteins.	For size-exclusion and/or ion-exchange chromatography to obtain pure, monodisperse protein [70].

This case study demonstrates the power of APR in moving beyond sequence comparison to direct functional analysis of ancient proteins. The data support a model where Dicer's ATPase function was lost in the vertebrate ancestor due to mutations that reduced its affinity for dsRNA and, consequently, for ATP. This loss likely uncoupled dsRNA binding from the active conformation of the helicase domain [70]. The emergence of RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs), which are specialized for viral dsRNA sensing and interferon signaling, may have alleviated the selective pressure on Dicer to maintain its ATP-dependent antiviral role, thereby allowing or even driving the loss of its ATPase function [70]. A recent study suggesting that human Dicer retains a very low level of ATPase activity opens new questions about its potential cellular functions and warrants further investigation using these sensitive biochemical protocols [72].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) has emerged as a powerful tool in biophysics for engineering proteins with enhanced properties such as thermostability and alkali-tolerance. By inferring historical sequences from modern descendants, ASR provides a phylogenetic framework forresurrecting ancient proteins that often exhibit remarkable robustness compared to their contemporary counterparts. This application note details integrated experimental and computational protocols for leveraging ASR to uncover and characterize proteins with enhanced stability profiles, providing researchers with a structured methodology for drug development and industrial enzyme applications. The biophysical principles underlying these enhanced properties are rooted in modifications to the protein conformational energy landscape, where mutations alter the relative stability of functional states to confer evolutionary advantages [1].

Theoretical Framework: Energy Landscapes and Protein Evolution

A protein's sequence encodes a conformational energy landscape that determines its functional capabilities [1]. Evolution navigates this landscape through mutations that selectively stabilize or destabilize specific conformations. ASR leverages this principle by reconstructing historical sequences that represent alternative solutions to biological problems, often revealing stabilizing mutations that have been lost in modern lineages. These ancestral proteins frequently display enhanced stability and altered function due to their distinct evolutionary contexts.

The relationship between sequence, energy landscape, and function can be understood through two complementary mechanisms:

• Global Stabilization: Many ancestral proteins exhibit increased thermodynamic stability throughout their structure, resulting from historical mutations that collectively lower the free energy of the native state [1].
• Strategic Destabilization: Controlled destabilization of the unbound state can enhance protein-protein interactions by increasing the energetic difference between unbound and bound states, as demonstrated in therapeutic proteins where destabilizing mutations improved binding affinity without affecting the complex stability [74].

Key Methodological Approaches

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR)

Protocol: Phylogenetic Reconstruction of Ancient Sequences

• Sequence Collection: Gather homologous protein sequences from diverse organisms using databases such as UniProt. Ensure broad phylogenetic representation to improve reconstruction accuracy [1].
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Construct a high-quality alignment using tools like MAFFT or ClustalOmega to identify homologous positions [1].
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Infer evolutionary relationships using maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods with software such as IQ-TREE or MrBayes [7] [1].
• Ancestral Sequence Inference: Reconstruct ancestral sequences at specific nodes using marginal probability methods implemented in tools like PAML or HyPhy [1]. Focus on nodes with high posterior probabilities (>0.9) for reliable reconstructions.

Stability Enhancement Through Domain-Specific ASR

Protocol: Chimeric Protein Engineering for Structural Biology

For challenging multi-domain proteins, partial ASR can stabilize specific domains to facilitate structural analysis:

• Target Identification: Identify flexible domains hindering structural characterization using B-factor analysis from existing crystal structures [7].
• Ancestral Domain Reconstruction: Perform ASR specifically for the problematic domain while maintaining contemporary sequences for other regions [7].
• Chimeric Protein Construction: Replace the unstable contemporary domain with its ancestral counterpart using standard molecular cloning techniques [7].
• Validation: Confirm that the chimeric protein retains wild-type function through enzymatic assays before proceeding to structural studies [7].

Table 1: Quantitative Improvements Achieved Through ASR in Model Systems

Protein System	Stability Metric	Improvement	Experimental Method	Reference
Polyketide Synthase Loading Module	Crystallization Success	Enabled high-resolution structure	X-ray crystallography	[7]
KSQAncAT Chimeric Didomain	Structural Resolution	High-resolution cryo-EM structures achieved	Cryo-EM	[7]
Human Growth Hormone (hGHv)	Binding Affinity	400-fold improvement	Isothermal Titration Calorimetry	[74]
Fc Region (YTE mutations)	FcRn Binding	10-fold improvement at pH 6.0	Surface Plasmon Resonance	[74]

Biophysics-Based Machine Learning Approaches

Protocol: METL Framework for Protein Engineering

The Mutational Effect Transfer Learning (METL) framework integrates biophysical simulations with experimental data to predict stability-enhancing mutations:

• Synthetic Data Generation: Use molecular modeling software (e.g., Rosetta) to generate structures for millions of protein sequence variants and compute biophysical attributes including solvation energies, van der Waals interactions, and hydrogen bonding [75].
• Model Pretraining: Pretrain transformer-based neural networks to predict biophysical attributes from sequences, using structure-based relative positional embeddings that consider 3D distances between residues [75].
• Experimental Fine-tuning: Fine-tune pretrained models on experimental stability data (e.g., thermal shift assays, activity retention after heating) to create property-specific predictors [75].
• Variant Selection: Use trained models to screen in silico for mutations predicted to enhance stability while maintaining function.

Experimental Characterization Workflows

Thermostability Assessment

Protocol: Comprehensive Stability Profiling

• Thermal Shift Assay:

  • Prepare protein samples (0.1-0.5 mg/mL) in relevant buffers with fluorescent dyes (e.g., SYPRO Orange)
  • Perform temperature ramps (e.g., 25-95°C at 1°C/min) in real-time PCR instruments
  • Determine melting temperature (T_m) from inflection points of unfolding curves
  • Compare ancestral and contemporary variants

• Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC):

  • Dialyze protein samples (>0.5 mg/mL) against appropriate buffer
  • Perform scans at controlled heating rates (e.g., 1°C/min)
  • Analyze thermograms to determine T_m and unfolding enthalpy (ΔH)
  • Identify multi-domain unfolding transitions [74]

• Functional Stability Assays:

  • Incubate proteins at elevated temperatures for various durations
  • Quickly cool samples and measure residual activity
  • Determine half-life at relevant temperatures
  • Compare ancestral and contemporary variants

Alkali-Tolerance Assessment

Protocol: pH Stability Profiling

• pH Titration Series:

  • Prepare buffers across pH range (e.g., pH 8-11) with appropriate buffering capacity
  • Incubate protein samples in each buffer for standardized duration
  • Measure structural integrity via circular dichroism spectroscopy
  • Assess functional activity under alkaline conditions

• Long-Term Alkaline Stability:

  • Incubate proteins at relevant alkaline pH for extended periods
  • Sample at time intervals for activity and structural assays
  • Monitor aggregation via dynamic light scattering
  • Compare degradation kinetics between variants

Structural Analysis of Stabilized Variants

Protocol: HDX-MS for Conformational Dynamics

• Sample Preparation: Prepare protein samples (10-50 μM) in appropriate buffers for hydrogen/deuterium exchange [74].
• Deuterium Labeling: Dilute protein into D₂O-based buffer for various time points (seconds to hours) [74].
• Quenching and Digestion: Lower pH and temperature to quench exchange, followed by protease digestion [74].
• MS Analysis: Use liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to measure deuterium incorporation [74].
• Data Interpretation: Identify regions with altered dynamics in ancestral versus contemporary variants [74].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for ASR and Stability Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Protocol Integration
Phylogenetic Analysis	IQ-TREE, PAML, HyPhy	Ancestral sequence inference	ASR protocol steps 3-4
Molecular Modeling	Rosetta, MODELLER	Structure prediction and energy calculations	METL framework step 1
Stability Assessment	SYPRO Orange, NanoDSF	Thermal shift assays	Thermostability protocol
Biophysical Characterization	ITC, DSC	Binding affinity and unfolding thermodynamics	[74]
Structural Biology	HDX-MS, X-ray crystallography, Cryo-EM	Conformational dynamics and high-resolution structure	[74] [7]
Machine Learning	METL, ESM-2	Variant effect prediction	METL framework
Cloning & Expression	Gibson Assembly, His-tag vectors	Chimeric protein construction	Domain-specific ASR

Integrated Workflow Diagram

ASR Protein Engineering Workflow

Case Studies and Applications

Polyketide Synthase Loading Module Engineering

The application of domain-specific ASR to the FD-891 PKS loading module demonstrated the utility of this approach for structural biology. Researchers replaced the native acyltransferase (AT) domain with an ancestral AT (AncAT) domain, creating a KSQ^AncAT chimeric didomain. This engineered protein retained wild-type enzymatic function while exhibiting reduced conformational variability, enabling high-resolution crystal structure determination that had proven impossible with the contemporary protein [7]. This case study illustrates how strategic incorporation of ancestral domains can overcome experimental bottlenecks in structural biology.

Therapeutic Protein Optimization

Studies of human growth hormone (hGH) and antibody Fc regions have demonstrated how strategic destabilization can enhance therapeutic properties. In hGH, 15 mutations that destabilized the unbound state resulted in a 400-fold improvement in binding affinity to hGH binding protein while maintaining biological activity [74]. Similarly, YTE mutations (M252Y/S354T/T256E) in antibody Fc regions induced 10-fold improved FcRn binding at pH 6.0, extending serum half-life [74]. In both cases, HDX-MS analysis revealed that the mutations increased the free energy of the unbound state without significantly affecting the bound complex, driving enhanced interactions through thermodynamic coupling [74].

Concluding Remarks

The integration of ASR with biophysical characterization provides a powerful framework for uncovering enhanced protein stability and developing robust variants for therapeutic and industrial applications. The protocols outlined herein enable systematic exploration of sequence space through evolutionary principles, while computational approaches like METL offer complementary strategies for stability engineering. As these methods continue to mature, they promise to accelerate the development of stabilized protein variants with enhanced properties for diverse biotechnological applications.

Evaluating Functional Divergence and the Emergence of Novel Activities

In the fields of molecular evolution and protein engineering, evaluating functional divergence is crucial for understanding how genes and proteins acquire new functions over evolutionary time. This process, which describes the evolutionary changes that lead to distinct functional properties in homologous molecules, can be studied through the powerful methodology of ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR). ASR allows researchers to computationally infer the sequences of ancient proteins and then experimentally "resurrect" them in the laboratory for functional characterization [76] [1]. This approach has become an indispensable tool for dissecting the molecular mechanisms underlying the evolution of novel protein functions, enzyme activities, binding specificities, and structural features [1] [12]. This Application Note provides detailed protocols and frameworks for evaluating functional divergence through ancestral protein resurrection, with specific examples and quantitative data to guide researchers in implementing these approaches in their investigation of protein evolution and engineering.

Key Concepts and Definitions

Functional Divergence

Functional divergence occurs when homologous genes or proteins, originating from a common ancestor, evolve distinct functional properties. This phenomenon is broadly categorized into two main types:

• Type I Functional Divergence: Characterized by changes in evolutionary constraints at specific sites after gene duplication, where one paralog experiences accelerated evolution while the other maintains ancestral constraints [77].
• Type II Functional Divergence: Involves a burst of rapid evolution immediately after duplication, followed by restoration of similar evolutionary constraints in both paralogous lineages [77].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR)

ASR is a computational and experimental methodology that infers the sequences of ancient proteins at specific nodes of a phylogenetic tree. The standard workflow involves four key steps [1]:

• Sequence Collection: Gathering homologous sequences from diverse organisms
• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Aligning sequences to identify homologous sites
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Inferring evolutionary relationships between sequences
• Ancestral Sequence Inference: Extrapolating backward along the tree to reconstruct ancestral sequences

Table 1: Statistical Methods for Detecting Functional Divergence

Method Name	Application Scope	Key Features	References
Likelihood-Ratio Test	Detecting changes in evolutionary constraints in SLiMs	Uses non-central chi-squared null distribution; accounts for heterogeneity in evolution	[77]
DIVERGE2	Identifying functionally diverging residues	Estimates type I and type II functional divergence coefficients	[78]
Rate Shift Analysis	Detecting evolutionary rate changes	Web server for identifying rate shifts at specific sites	[78]
covARES	Analyzing covarion-like evolution	Identifies sites with changing evolutionary rates	[78]

Quantitative Assessment of Functional Divergence

Evaluating functional divergence requires quantitative assessment of evolutionary changes and their functional consequences. The following case studies demonstrate how this evaluation can be performed experimentally.

Case Study 1: Functional Divergence in Mamba Aminergic Toxins

A study resurrecting six ancestral toxins (AncTx1-AncTx6) from mamba venoms revealed how key substitutions modulate receptor binding affinity and specificity [12]. The research identified specific positions that dramatically alter pharmacological profiles:

Table 2: Pharmacological Profiles of Resurrected Ancestral Mamba Toxins

Toxin Variant	Key Substitutions	Pharmacological Profile	Functional Characterization
AncTx1	-	Most selective α1A-adrenoceptor peptide known	Exceptional selectivity for α1A-adrenoceptor
AncTx5	-	Most potent pan-inhibitor of α2 adrenoceptor subtypes	High potency across all α2 subtypes
AncTx4 to ρ-Da1a	I38S	Altered receptor specificity	Key modulator of affinity for α1 and α2C adrenoceptors
AncTx4 to MTβ	A43V	Modified binding properties	Key modulator of affinity for α1 and α2C adrenoceptors
AncTx3 to AncTx4	W28R	Shift in receptor recognition	Key modulator of affinity for α1 and α2C adrenoceptors

The study demonstrated that only a limited number of substitutions (e.g., W28R, I38S, A43V) were sufficient to cause significant functional shifts in receptor binding specificity, illustrating how ASR can identify key functional residues [12].

Case Study 2: Evaluating Functional Divergence in Nematode Developmental Plasticity Genes

Research on mouth-form regulation in nematodes compared gene functions between Pristionchus pacificus and Allodiplogaster sudhausi, which diverged approximately 180 million years ago [79]. CRISPR-engineered mutations revealed distinct patterns of functional conservation and divergence:

• Conserved switch genes: Sulfatase-encoding genes (eud-1 homologs) retained their function as developmental switches in both species
• Quantitative effects: Some genes displayed quantitative effects with knock-outs showing intermediate phenotypes
• Novel functions: In A. sudhausi, certain genes acquired novel roles in regulating a third mouth-form morph (teratostomatous) not present in P. pacificus

This study demonstrated that despite extensive evolutionary distance, core genes maintained their role in mouth-form regulation while acquiring species-specific functions [79].

Experimental Protocols

Protocol 1: Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction and Resurrection

Objective: Resurrect and characterize ancestral proteins to evaluate functional divergence

Materials:

• Homologous protein sequences from diverse taxa
• Computational tools (Phylogenetic analysis software: MrBayes, RAxML, PAML)
• Gene synthesis services
• Protein expression and purification systems
• Relevant functional assays

Procedure:

• Sequence Collection and Curation

  • Collect homologous sequences from public databases (UniProt, NCBI)
  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using MAFFT or ClustalOmega
  • Curate alignment to remove fragments and ensure quality

• Phylogenetic Analysis

  • Construct phylogenetic tree using maximum likelihood or Bayesian methods
  • Validate tree topology with bootstrap analysis or posterior probabilities
  • Select target ancestral nodes for reconstruction

• Ancestral Sequence Inference

  • Compute posterior probabilities for ancestral states using marginal reconstruction
  • Apply empirical substitution models (e.g., LG, WAG)
  • Resolve ambiguous sites by selecting most probable residues

• Gene Synthesis and Protein Production

  • Synthesize genes encoding ancestral sequences commercially
  • Clone into appropriate expression vectors
  • Express and purify proteins using standard protocols

• Functional Characterization

  • Perform biochemical assays relevant to protein function
  • Determine kinetic parameters (Km, kcat) for enzymes
  • Measure binding affinities for receptors/ligands
  • Assess structural properties (CD spectroscopy, X-ray crystallography)

Troubleshooting Tips:

• For ambiguous sites with low posterior probabilities, consider constructing and testing multiple variants
• If ancestral proteins exhibit poor expression, test solubility tags or alternative expression systems
• Validate reconstructed functions through complementary assays to ensure comprehensive characterization

Protocol 2: Experimental Evaluation of Functional Divergence

Objective: Quantitatively assess functional divergence between ancestral and modern proteins

Materials:

• Resurrected ancestral proteins
• Modern homologs for comparison
• Equipment for relevant functional assays
• Statistical analysis software

Procedure:

• Design Comparison Experiments

  • Select modern homologs representing key points in evolutionary history
  • Identify specific functional properties to compare (activity, specificity, stability)

• Quantitative Functional Assays

  • Perform dose-response experiments to determine EC50/IC50 values
  • Measure substrate specificity profiles across relevant substrates
  • Determine thermal stability using thermofluor or CD melting assays

• Structural Analysis (if applicable)

  • Determine crystal structures of ancestral and modern proteins
  • Compare active site architectures and conformational landscapes

• Data Analysis

  • Statistically compare functional parameters between ancestors and modern proteins
  • Map functional changes to specific historical substitutions
  • Identify epistatic interactions through ancestral mutational landscapes

Interpretation Guidelines:

• Significant differences in functional parameters indicate functional divergence
• Residues showing type I or type II functional divergence are candidates for driving functional changes
• Correlate sequence changes with functional shifts to identify key substitutions

Visualization of Experimental Workflows

Ancestral Protein Resurrection and Functional Analysis Workflow

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Ancestral Protein Resurrection Studies

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Notes
Phylogenetic Analysis Software	RAxML, MrBayes, PAML, IQ-TREE	Reconstruction of evolutionary relationships and ancestral states	PAML specifically implements codon substitution models for ASR
Sequence Alignment Tools	MAFFT, ClustalOmega, MUSCLE	Creating multiple sequence alignments for homology assessment	MAFFT generally recommended for large datasets
ASR-specific Packages	DIVERGE2, HYPHY, GRASP	Detecting functional divergence and reconstructing ancestors	DIVERGE2 specifically detects type I/II functional divergence
Gene Synthesis Services	Commercial gene synthesis providers	Production of ancestral gene sequences for laboratory study	Essential when ancestral sequences differ significantly from modern
Protein Expression Systems	E. coli, yeast, mammalian cell lines	Production of resurrected ancestral proteins	Choice depends on protein properties and modification requirements
Structural Biology Resources	X-ray crystallography, Cryo-EM, CD spectroscopy	Determining structures and conformational properties of ancestors	Cryo-EM particularly useful for large complexes [7]
Functional Assays	Enzyme kinetics, binding measurements, cellular assays	Quantifying functional properties of resurrected proteins	Should be tailored to specific protein family being studied
Database Resources	Revenant database, PDB, UniProt	Access to previously resurrected proteins and sequences	Revenant contains 84 resurrected proteins with biochemical data [76]

The integration of ancestral sequence reconstruction with experimental molecular biology provides a powerful framework for evaluating functional divergence and the emergence of novel activities. The protocols and examples presented in this Application Note demonstrate how researchers can systematically investigate the evolutionary mechanisms behind functional innovation. By reconstructing and characterizing ancestral proteins, scientists can identify key substitutions responsible for functional changes, elucidate evolutionary trajectories, and engineer proteins with novel properties. This approach has already yielded significant insights across diverse protein families, from snake toxins to metabolic enzymes, and continues to be an invaluable strategy for understanding protein evolution and engineering. As ASR methodologies advance and incorporate more sophisticated models of sequence evolution, along with improved functional characterization techniques, our ability to decipher and engineer functional divergence will continue to expand, opening new avenues for basic research and biotechnological applications.

Conclusion

Ancestral protein resurrection has matured into a robust methodological platform that provides unparalleled insights into protein evolution and function. By integrating sophisticated computational models with rigorous experimental validation, researchers can not only deduce historical evolutionary pathways but also engineer proteins with enhanced stability, novel functions, and unique specificities—as demonstrated by the creation of highly selective toxins and the tracing of Dicer helicase function loss. Future directions will leverage increasing genomic data and more complex evolutionary models to resurrect deeper ancestors, further illuminating ancient biochemistry. For biomedical research, these protocols offer a powerful strategy for generating optimized protein scaffolds and understanding functional diversification, with significant implications for therapeutic development, including the design of targeted biologics and enzymes with tailored catalytic properties.

References

• 1. Ancestral reconstruction and the evolution of protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11192866/]
• 2. Ancestral sequence reconstruction [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sequence_reconstruction]
• 3. Ancestral sequence reconstruction as a tool to study ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10512382/]
• 4. Repurposing ancient proteins for modern functions [https://www.hfsp.org/hfsp-news/repurposing-ancient-proteins-modern-functions]
• 5. Assessing the Accuracy of Ancestral Protein Reconstruction ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020069]
• 6. Comparative analysis of reconstructed ancestral proteins ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-50828-4]
• 7. Ancestral sequence reconstruction as a tool for structural ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-62168-0]
• 8. Exploring the Energy Landscapes of Protein Folding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3283771/]
• 9. Biotechnological and protein-engineering implications of ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X18300071]
• 10. InterPro: the protein sequence classification resource in 2025 [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11701551/]
• 11. High-accuracy protein complex structure modeling based ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65090-7]
• 12. Ancestral protein resurrection and engineering ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02953-0]
• 13. Navigating protein landscapes with a machine-learned ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01874-0]
• 14. New Study Challenges the Role of Ancient Protein Motifs ... [https://modernsciences.org/ancient-protein-motifs-evolution-life-june-2025/]
• 15. Anticipating protein evolution with successor sequence predictor [https://jcheminf.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13321-025-00971-z]
• 16. Ancestral protein reconstruction [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=5598399&type=30]
• 17. Evolutionary insights into elongation factor G using ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010482525005396]
• 18. SARST2 high-throughput and resource-efficient protein ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-63757-9]
• 19. Enhancing the pharmaceutical properties of protein drugs ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5225049/]
• 20. Phylogeny and Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=4224267&type=30]
• 21. Robustness of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction to ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12046983/]
• 22. When directed evolution met ancestral enzyme resurrection [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5270717/]
• 23. Research Areas | Belinda Chang's Lab - University of Toronto [https://chang.eeb.utoronto.ca/research/]
• 24. gene synthesis Planning for the Future: Key Trends 2025- ... [https://www.datainsightsmarket.com/reports/gene-synthesis-1494244]
• 25. Gene Synthesis Market - Growth & Opportunities 2025-2035 [https://www.futuremarketinsights.com/reports/gene-synthesis-market]
• 26. GenScript Life Science Research Grant Program 2025 [https://www.genscript.com/grantprogram-2025.html]
• 27. Reconstructing Ancient Proteins to Understand the Causes of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6141191/]
• 28. Optimizing protein folding in prokaryotes: Strategies to ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40915584/]
• 29. Optimizing protein folding in prokaryotes: Strategies to ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960852425012337]
• 30. Development of an efficient heterologous protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12236015/]
• 31. Recent Advances in Heterologous Protein Expression and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12299000/]
• 32. Biotechnological and protein-engineering implications of ... [https://asu.elsevierpure.com/en/publications/biotechnological-and-protein-engineering-implications-of-ancestra/]
• 33. Biophysical and Integrative Characterization of Protein ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10046839/]
• 34. Navigating the landscape of protein folding and proteostasis [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-025-02439-w]
• 35. Microplate-Based Enzymatic Activity Assay Protocol ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40515987/]
• 36. Enzyme activity assay [https://bio-protocol.org/exchange/minidetail?id=1017505&type=30]
• 37. Unlocking Precision: The Power of Ligand Binding Assays ... [https://www.eurofins-viracorbiopharma.com/resource-library/posts/2025/july/blog-unlocking-precision-the-power-of-ligand-binding-assays-in-clinical-trials/]
• 38. Ligand Binding Assays: Definitions, Techniques, and Tips ... [https://fluidic.com/insight/ligand-binding-assays-definitions-techniques-and-tips-to-avoid-pitfalls/]
• 39. Enzyme specificity prediction using cross-attention graph ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09697-2]
• 40. New AI tool helps match enzymes to substrates [https://las.illinois.edu/news/2025-11-03/new-ai-tool-helps-match-enzymes-substrates]
• 41. A method for predicting enzyme substrate specificity residues ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12461433/]
• 42. Assessing phylogenetic confidence at pandemic scales [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09567-x]
• 43. Relative model selection of evolutionary substitution models ... [https://www.researchwithrowan.com/en/publications/relative-model-selection-of-evolutionary-substitution-models-can-/]
• 44. A Comprehensive Protocol for Bayesian Phylogenetic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12021591/]
• 45. Resurrected ancient enzyme could transform gene editing [https://www.drugdiscoverynews.com/resurrected-ancient-enzyme-could-transform-gene-editing-16263]
• 46. Molecular de-extinction opens possibilities for new antibiotics [https://www.cas.org/resources/cas-insights/molecular-de-extinction]
• 47. Researchers Resurrect Extinct Plant Gene for New Drug ... [https://news.northeastern.edu/2025/04/14/cyclic-peptide-research-drug-discovery/]
• 48. Robustness of ancestral sequence reconstruction to among ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11702759/]
• 49. Enhancing recombinant protein production through Cre ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-025-08110-y]
• 50. Protein - Denaturation, Structure, Function [https://www.britannica.com/science/protein/Protein-denaturation]
• 51. Smart culture medium optimization for recombinant protein ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0734975025002241]
• 52. Computational design of superstable proteins through ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41557-025-01998-3]
• 53. High‐Throughput Pipeline for Protein Expression and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12306927/]
• 54. Overview of Affinity Purification [https://www.thermofisher.com/us/en/home/life-science/protein-biology/protein-biology-learning-center/protein-biology-resource-library/pierce-protein-methods/overview-affinity-purification.html]
• 55. What is Ion Exchange Chromatography Used For? 4 ... [https://www.goldbio.com/blogs/articles/4-important-applications-for-protein-purification-using-ion-exchange-chromatography?srsltid=AfmBOorUEeb88jfknkmT6vYg62OJRpX2ty-hL6MgLEMMUe_Q-mX8dQ9r]
• 56. Protein Purification by Ion Exchange Chromatography [https://www.sinobiological.com/resource/protein-review/protein-purification-by-iec]
• 57. Biases In Maximum Likelihood and Parsimony [https://www.academia.edu/372831/Biases_In_Maximum_Likelihood_and_Parsimony_a_Simulation_Approach_to_a_10_Taxon_Case]
• 58. Common Methods for Phylogenetic Tree Construction and ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11117635/]
• 59. Consequences of Genetic Recombination on Protein Folding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9849154/]
• 60. Dollo Parsimony Overestimates Ancestral Gene Content ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10995720/]
• 61. Extant Sequence Reconstruction: The Accuracy of Ancestral ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38502220/]
• 62. Bayesian probability updates using sampling/importance ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/physics/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.1058809/full]
• 63. New method provides the key to accessing proteins in ... [https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2025-05-29-new-method-provides-key-accessing-proteins-ancient-human-remains]
• 64. The lab resurrecting ancient proteins to unlock life's secrets [https://bigthink.com/life/the-lab-resurrecting-ancient-proteins-to-unlock-lifes-secrets/]
• 65. Extant Sequence Reconstruction: The Accuracy of ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-024-10162-3]
• 66. Learning about protein stability and functional activity from ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022283625005017]
• 67. Reconstruction of Ancestral Protein Sequences Using ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40139916/]
• 68. studying photoreceptors with a virtual time machine [https://archive.aps.org/smt/2025/mar-b71/1/]
• 69. Structure-guided engineering of snake toxins for selective ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61695-0]
• 70. Ancestral protein reconstruction reveals evolutionary events governing variation in Dicer helicase function | eLife [https://elifesciences.org/articles/85120]
• 71. Ancestral protein reconstruction reveals evolutionary ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10159624/]
• 72. The human Dicer helicase domain is capable of ATP ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11658451/]
• 73. Identification of an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase in ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2736140/]
• 74. Enhancement of Protein-Protein Interactions by ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40867645/]
• 75. Biophysics-based protein language models for ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02776-2]
• 76. Revenant: a database of resurrected proteins - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7218706/]
• 77. Detecting Functional Divergence after Gene Duplication ... [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003977]
• 78. Functional Divergence - an overview [https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/biochemistry-genetics-and-molecular-biology/functional-divergence]
• 79. Functional divergence of conserved developmental ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-025-14207-5]