Resurrecting the Past for Future Cures: A Modern Guide to Validating Ancestral Protein Functions In Vivo

Abstract

Ancestral protein reconstruction (APR) has emerged as a powerful tool for understanding molecular evolution and engineering novel biologics. This article provides a comprehensive framework for researchers and drug development professionals to design, execute, and troubleshoot in vivo validation studies for resurrected ancestral proteins. We explore foundational concepts, detail modern methodologies integrating phylogenetic analysis with structural data from tools like AlphaFold 2, address common pitfalls in experimental design, and establish robust validation strategies comparing ancestral proxies to modern counterparts. By synthesizing recent advances, this guide aims to bridge the gap between computational predictions of ancient protein functions and their rigorous confirmation in living systems, thereby unlocking their potential for therapeutic discovery and fundamental biological insight.

The Why and How of Ancestral Protein Resurrection: Principles and Phylogenetics

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) is a computational and experimental technique for inferring the sequences of ancient proteins from contemporary sequences and "resurrecting" them in the laboratory for functional study. Also known as Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR), this method allows scientists to travel back in time to answer fundamental questions about molecular evolution, protein function, and ancient environments. This guide defines APR, outlines its core objectives with supporting experimental data, and details the protocols and reagents essential for validating ancestral protein function, particularly within the context of in vivo research. By comparing data across multiple studies, we provide a framework for researchers to critically evaluate APR methodologies and their applications in basic science and drug development.

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses the genetic sequences of modern organisms to computationally infer the sequences of ancient proteins that existed in extinct life forms, followed by their synthesis and experimental characterization [1] [2]. The foundational principle of APR is that closely related species have similar DNA and protein sequences. By comparing these sequences across a phylogeny, scientists can deduce the sequences of their common ancestors [1]. The method was first suggested in 1963 by Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl, who proposed that ancient biomolecules could be reconstructed to study evolutionary history, a field they termed "Paleobiochemistry" [1]. Early pioneering work in the 1990s on ribonucleases demonstrated the feasibility of this approach, and with advances in sequencing, computing, and gene synthesis, it has since become a powerful tool for exploring deep evolutionary history [3].

APR operates on the understanding that modern proteins are the descendants of ancient precursors that have diversified through gene duplication and sequence changes over billions of years [3]. The technique does not claim to recreate the one true ancestral sequence with absolute certainty. Instead, it generates a sequence that is statistically likely to be very similar to the ancient protein and, crucially, is expected to share its functional properties [1]. This is consistent with the "neutral network" model of protein evolution, which posits that at any evolutionary node, a population of genotypically different but phenotypically similar protein sequences likely existed [1].

Key Objectives of APR and Experimental Validation

The application of APR spans a wide range of scientific objectives, from understanding evolutionary mechanisms to engineering modern therapeutics. The table below summarizes the primary objectives, key experimental findings, and the in vivo validation context.

Table 1: Key Objectives and Experimental Evidence in Ancestral Protein Reconstruction

Objective	Key Experimental Findings	Supporting Data & In Vivo Context
Trace Functional Evolution	Reconstruction of animal Dicer helicase ancestors revealed a gradual loss of ATPase function in the vertebrate lineage, linked to the emergence of RIG-I-like receptors [4].	Biochemical assays showed ancestral Dicer possessed dsRNA-stimulated ATPase activity, which was lost in vertebrates. This suggests a shift in antiviral defense mechanisms during evolution [4].
Identify Key Functional Residues	Study of ancestral hormone receptors and steroid receptors identified specific residues determining binding specificity, which were obscured in horizontal comparisons of extant proteins [3] [2].	The "vertical" historical approach of APR isolates the chronology of mutations, allowing researchers to pinpoint residues responsible for functional shifts that are difficult to identify by other methods [3].
Deduce Ancient Environmental Conditions	Reconstruction of thioredoxin enzymes dating back ~4 billion years found ancestral versions had significantly elevated thermal and acidic stability compared to modern counterparts [1].	Increased thermostability of resurrected proteins is often correlated with hypothesized higher ancient environmental temperatures, providing indirect evidence of historical habitats [1].
Engineer Proteins with Enhanced Properties	Ancestral Factor VIII (FVIII) variants were reconstructed, showing improved biosynthesis, specific activity, and reduced immunogenicity compared to modern human FVIII [5] [6].	In vivo studies in hemophilia A mice showed ancestral FVIII transgenes (e.g., An-53) yielded higher plasma FVIII activity levels than modern FVIII, demonstrating superior therapeutic potential for gene therapy [5].
Study the Evolution of Protein Complexes	APR was used to infer the ancestral state of protein-interaction networks, predicting an ancient core of the Commander complex with more recent additions in tetrapods [7].	Analysis of over 16,000 mass spectrometry experiments allowed for the estimation of ancestral protein interactions, providing insights into the assembly and evolution of complex cellular machinery [7].

Methodological Approaches: From Sequence to Resurrection

The workflow of APR is methodical, involving sequential steps from data collection to experimental testing. The diagram below illustrates this comprehensive process.

Computational Reconstruction Protocols

The core computational challenge of APR is to infer the most probable sequence at the internal nodes of a phylogenetic tree.

• Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogeny: The process begins with gathering modern protein sequences from databases, which are then aligned into a Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) to identify homologous positions [1] [8]. A phylogenetic tree is inferred from this alignment, often using methods like maximum likelihood or Bayesian inference [8]. The quality of this tree is critical for the accuracy of the entire reconstruction [8].

• Reconstruction Algorithms: Several statistical methods can be used to infer ancestral states:

  • Maximum Parsimony (MP): This early method finds the tree that requires the smallest number of evolutionary changes to explain the modern sequences [3]. While simple, it often oversimplifies evolution and is generally considered less reliable, especially over deep time scales [1].
  • Maximum Likelihood (ML): Currently a popular approach, ML uses an explicit model of sequence evolution to find the ancestral sequence that has the highest probability (likelihood) of giving rise to the observed modern sequences [9] [1] [8]. A potential drawback is that by always choosing the single most probable residue, ML can overestimate ancestral protein stability [9].
  • Bayesian Inference (BI): This method samples ancestral sequences from a posterior probability distribution, which accounts for uncertainty in the reconstruction [10] [9]. Instead of one "best guess" sequence, BI produces a set of plausible sequences. This approach has been shown to reduce bias in estimating ancestral protein properties like thermostability [9].

A key consideration is rate variation across sites. Evolutionary rates are not uniform across all positions in a protein; residues critical for structure or function evolve more slowly. Modern protocols account for this, often by modeling rate variation with a gamma distribution, which significantly improves the accuracy of distance estimation and ancestral reconstruction [8].

Experimental Validation and In Vivo Challenges

Once ancestral sequences are reconstructed and synthesized, they are expressed and purified for characterization.

• In Vitro Characterization: The initial biochemical and biophysical analysis is typically performed in a controlled test tube environment (in vitro). This includes measuring enzyme activity, substrate specificity, thermal stability, and structural properties [1]. A common observation is "ancestral superiority," where resurrected ancestral proteins display higher stability and catalytic promiscuity than their modern counterparts [1]. However, this trend could sometimes be an artifact of reconstruction biases and requires careful controls [9] [1].

• The In Vivo Context: Validating ancestral protein function within a living organism (in vivo) is the gold standard for understanding its true biological role but presents significant challenges [1]. The cellular environment of a modern organism is different from the ancient one, and it is difficult to mimic ancient cellular conditions. A 2015 study highlighted that the "ancestral superiority" observed in vitro was not recapitulated in vivo, underscoring the importance of this level of validation [1]. Successful in vivo studies, such as those demonstrating the efficacy of ancestral FVIII in mouse models of hemophilia A, show the translational potential of APR [5].

The following diagram outlines the key decision points for designing a robust APR study, leading to conclusive in vivo validation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successfully conducting an APR study requires a suite of specialized computational and laboratory reagents. The following table details key resources and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions for APR Studies

Category	Reagent / Solution	Function in APR Workflow
Computational Tools	ANCESCON, PAML, PHYLIP, PAUP*	Software packages for phylogenetic inference and ancestral sequence reconstruction; they implement algorithms like ML and BI to calculate ancestral states [9] [8].
Gene Synthesis	Codon-optimized synthetic genes	De novo synthesis of the inferred ancestral DNA sequences, optimized for expression in the chosen host organism (e.g., human cell lines) [5].
Expression Systems	Cell lines (e.g., HEK293), AAV/lentiviral vectors, Hydrodynamic plasmid DNA infusion	Production of the ancestral protein in a laboratory setting. Different systems are used for in vitro protein production and for in vivo gene therapy/delivery models [5].
Purification Materials	SP-Sepharose, Source-Q chromatography resins, Tricorn columns	Purification of recombinantly expressed ancestral proteins for in vitro biochemical and biophysical assays [5].
Analytical Assays	Thermal shift assays, enzyme activity kits, Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR)	Characterization of ancestral protein properties, including thermostability, specific activity, and ligand-binding affinity [4] [1].
In Vivo Models	Murine hemophilia A model	Testing the therapeutic efficacy and functional performance of resurrected ancestral proteins in a live animal model, providing the most physiologically relevant data [5].
4-Isobutylresorcinol	4-Isobutylresorcinol	4-Isobutylresorcinol (CAS 18979-62-9). A synthetic antioxidant reagent for research on melanogenesis and skin brightening. For Research Use Only. Not for human consumption.
Gal(b1-2)Gal	Gal(b1-2)Gal Reagent	High-purity Gal(b1-2)Gal for research applications. This product is for Research Use Only (RUO), not for human or veterinary diagnostic use.

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction has established itself as a uniquely powerful method for exploring protein evolution and engineering. By moving beyond a purely horizontal comparison of modern sequences, APR's vertical, historical approach allows researchers to trace the evolutionary trajectory of protein functions, identify key genetic determinants, and deduce historical environmental conditions. While computational methods continue to advance—with Bayesian approaches helping to mitigate historical biases—the ultimate validation of ancestral protein function requires robust in vivo testing. As the case studies of Dicer helicase and Factor VIII illustrate, the insights gained from APR not only illuminate deep evolutionary history but also provide a novel strategy for optimizing modern protein therapeutics, offering direct value to drug development professionals.

In the quest to understand the intricate relationship between protein sequence, structure, and function, two distinct explanatory frameworks have emerged: the functionalist paradigm and historical biochemistry. The functionalist paradigm has long dominated biochemistry, operating on the core premise that a protein's existing structure is best explained by its modern biological function [11]. This approach effectively rationalizes protein features by how they enable current physiological roles, creating a useful abstraction that distills complex structures down to functional essentials [11]. However, this paradigm struggles to explain why proteins with identical functions can have vastly different structures, or why many protein features exist that appear to have no direct functional purpose [11].

Historical biochemistry, particularly through ancestral protein reconstruction (APR), has emerged as a powerful complementary approach. By statistically inferring ancestral protein sequences from evolutionary models, synthesizing them, and experimentally characterizing their properties, researchers can trace how functions evolved through deep time [11] [4]. This vertical analysis through evolutionary history reveals how historical contingency, structural constraints, and functional optimization have collectively shaped modern proteins—addressing fundamental questions that the functionalist paradigm alone cannot answer.

Theoretical Foundations and Key Limitations

The Functionalist Paradigm: Strengths and Blind Spots

The functionalist approach in biochemistry is characterized by its emphasis on explaining biological phenomena through the physical properties of their underlying molecular structures [11]. As Francis Crick famously asserted, "If you want to understand function, study structure" [11]. This framework has advanced the reductionist program in biochemistry, successfully explaining how specific structural features enable biological functions, such as how the atomic structure of potassium channels explains their ion selectivity [11].

However, this paradigm suffers from three significant limitations:

• It cannot explain structural differences among proteins with identical functions. Functionally defined groups like carbonic anhydrases, alcohol dehydrogenases, and serine proteases contain members with the same biochemical activity but vastly different overall structures, as they evolved independently from different ancestral proteins [11].
• It implicitly assumes optimal functional adaptation. Functionalist biochemistry often presumes that all aspects of proteins have been optimized for their functions, ignoring how historical constraints and non-adaptive processes shape protein architecture [11].
• It struggles to explain how sequence encodes structure and function. The functionalist approach cannot easily address why specific sequences produce particular structures and functions, as the sequence-structure-function relationship emerges from historical evolutionary processes [11].

Philosophical Context: Functionalism as an Explanatory Strategy

The functionalist-structuralist debate has deep roots in biological thought, arguably dating back to Aristotle [12]. Functionalism in biology represents the view that "with respect to organic form, structure is explained in terms of function" [12]. This perspective can be understood as an explanatory strategy where the explanandum (thing to be explained) is organic form, and the explanans (explaining thing) is functional needs [12]. In this framework, structure exists because of its functional consequences—a perspective that has persisted through radical changes in biological theory from creationism to modern evolutionary biology [12].

Methodological Comparison: Horizontal vs. Vertical Analysis

Comparative Biochemistry: Horizontal Analysis of Extant Proteins

Traditional comparative biochemistry employs horizontal analysis, comparing related modern proteins to identify sequence differences responsible for functional variations [11]. While theoretically straightforward, this approach faces significant practical challenges:

Table 1: Limitations of Horizontal Comparative Analysis

Limitation	Description	Consequence
Epistatic Interactions	Effects of mutations depend on genetic background [11].	Horizontal swaps often produce nonfunctional proteins [11].
Experimental Inefficiency	Must address all sequence differences between homologs [11].	Astronomical increase in required experiments with moderate sequence divergence [11].
Historical Obscuration	Modern sequences contain all changes since common ancestor [11].	Difficult to distinguish functionally relevant changes from neutral drift [11].

Historical Biochemistry: Vertical Analysis Through Ancestral Reconstruction

Ancestral protein reconstruction enables vertical analysis by isolating evolutionary changes to specific branches on a phylogenetic tree [11]. The APR workflow typically involves:

Figure 1: Ancestral Protein Reconstruction Workflow. The process begins with extant sequences and progresses through phylogenetic analysis, ancestral inference, and experimental characterization to test evolutionary hypotheses.

This approach offers distinct advantages over horizontal comparisons. By focusing on the specific changes that occurred during defined evolutionary intervals, APR dramatically reduces the number of candidate mutations that need to be tested [11]. It also minimizes epistatic effects by introducing historical substitutions into sequence backgrounds similar to those in which they originally occurred [11].

Case Studies in Historical Biochemistry

Resurrecting Mamba Aminergic Toxins

A groundbreaking study demonstrated how APR could illuminate the evolution of mamba venom toxins, which target aminergic receptors with exceptional specificity [13]. Researchers resurrected six ancestral toxins (AncTx1-AncTx6) and discovered:

Table 2: Key Findings from Mamba Toxin Reconstruction

Ancestral Toxin	Functional Characterization	Evolutionary Insight
AncTx1	Most α1A-adrenoceptor selective peptide known [13].	Revealed evolutionary pathway to extreme specificity.
AncTx5	Most potent inhibitor of three α2 adrenoceptor subtypes [13].	Demonstrated ancestral potency exceeding modern variants.
AncTx Variants	Identified positions 28, 38, 43 as key affinity modulators [13].	Revealed epistasis in toxin evolution.

The study successfully associated pharmacological profiles with specific functional substitutions, demonstrating how APR can guide protein engineering by identifying key functional residues [13]. This approach generated a small but functionally rich library of variants, avoiding the need to screen overwhelming numbers of random mutants [13].

Tracing the Loss of Dicer Helicase Function

APR revealed how human Dicer lost ATP hydrolysis capability essential for antiviral defense in invertebrate Dicers [4]. By reconstructing ancestral Dicer helicase domains, researchers determined:

• Ancient animal Dicer possessed robust ATPase function stimulated by dsRNA [4]
• This capability declined through deuterostome evolution and was lost entirely in vertebrates [4]
• Loss correlated with diminished dsRNA binding affinity [4]
• Restoration of ATPase function required substitutions distant from the catalytic pocket [4]

This study provided mechanistic insight into how functional specialization occurred during animal evolution, with RIG-I-like receptors potentially replacing Dicer's antiviral role in vertebrates [4].

Evolution of Enzyme Specificity in Lactate Dehydrogenase

Contrary to the hypothesis that ancestral proteins were generalists, APR revealed that pyruvate specificity in apicomplexan lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) evolved de novo from a malate dehydrogenase (MDH)-specific ancestor [14]. The common ancestor (AncM/L) showed strong preference for oxaloacetate over pyruvate (>10⁷-fold), not the expected generalist profile [14]. The shift to pyruvate specificity occurred through:

• A six-amino acid insertion that dramatically increased pyruvate efficiency (>12,000-fold)
• An Arg102Lys substitution that further reduced ancestral oxaloacetate activity

Crystal structures of ancestral proteins showed how the insertion introduced a Trp residue that improved hydrophobic packing with pyruvate's methyl group [14]. This case demonstrates that new specific functions can evolve through simple genetic changes altering key electrostatic and steric complementarity determinants [14].

Practical Implementation: Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methods for Ancestral Protein Reconstruction

Reagent/Method	Function in APR	Key Considerations
Multiple Sequence Alignment Algorithms	Identifies homologous positions across extant proteins [11].	Critical for accurate phylogenetic inference and ancestral reconstruction.
Probabilistic Models of Evolution	Estimates substitution patterns and evolutionary rates [11].	Model selection significantly impacts reconstruction accuracy [9].
Maximum Likelihood/Bayesian Inference	Statistically infers ancestral states at each sequence position [11] [9].	Bayesian methods may reduce stability overestimation bias [9].
Gene Synthesis Services	Produces DNA encoding reconstructed ancestral sequences [13].	Enables experimental characterization of inferred sequences.
Protein Expression & Purification Systems	Produces ancestral proteins for functional testing [13] [4].	Mammalian, bacterial, or cell-free systems selected based on protein requirements.
Circular Dichroism Spectroscopy	Verifies proper folding of reconstructed proteins [13].	Confirms ancestral proteins adopt expected secondary structures.

Addressing Methodological Challenges in APR

Managing Reconstruction Uncertainty

A significant concern in APR is the statistical uncertainty inherent in reconstructing ancient sequences. The maximum likelihood (ML) approach yields a single "best guess" sequence, but sites are often reconstructed ambiguously, with multiple plausible amino acid states [15]. Research has demonstrated several strategies to address this uncertainty:

• Single-variant analysis: Creating and testing proteins containing plausible alternate states at individual ambiguous sites [15]
• "Worst plausible case" (AltAll) protein: Incorporating all plausible alternate states into a single protein to test robustness to extreme uncertainty [15]
• Bayesian sampling: Generating multiple sequences by sampling from the posterior probability distribution at each site [9] [15]

Notably, studies have found that qualitative functional inferences are generally robust to sequence uncertainty, even when scores of alternative amino acids are incorporated [15]. However, quantitative parameters show more variation, suggesting that robustness testing is particularly important when precise biochemical characterization is desired [15].

Avoiding Reconstruction Biases

Computational studies have revealed that reconstruction methods can introduce systematic biases. For example, maximum parsimony and maximum likelihood methods tend to overestimate protein thermostability because they eliminate slightly detrimental variants that are less frequent [9]. Bayesian methods that sample from the posterior distribution appear to reduce this bias [9]. This highlights the importance of method selection and validation in APR studies.

The functionalist paradigm and historical biochemistry represent complementary rather than competing approaches to understanding protein function. Where functionalism excels at explaining how modern structures enable current functions, historical biochemistry reveals why proteins have their specific architectures and how new functions emerged through evolutionary history. The integration of these approaches provides a more complete framework for understanding protein sequence-structure-function relationships.

For drug development professionals, historical biochemistry offers valuable insights for protein engineering. By revealing the evolutionary trajectories and structural constraints that shaped modern protein families, APR provides guidance for designing novel therapeutics with enhanced specificity and potency [13] [16]. The resurrection of ancestral toxins with exceptional receptor selectivity demonstrates the potential of evolution-guided protein engineering for developing targeted therapeutics [13].

As the field advances, the integration of ancestral reconstruction with emerging protein design technologies—including AI-based structure prediction and de novo design—promises to further accelerate our ability to understand and engineer protein function [16]. This synthesis of historical and synthetic approaches will continue to transform both basic research and therapeutic development in the years ahead.

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) is a powerful phylogenetic technique that allows scientists to infer the genetic sequences of ancient proteins, creating a tangible bridge to the past for experimental exploration. By analyzing the molecular evolution of protein families, ASR generates explicit, testable hypotheses about how historical changes in protein sequence have shaped their structural and functional characteristics over evolutionary timescales [17]. This methodology has transitioned from a theoretical exercise to an indispensable experimental approach, particularly in the field of drug development where it offers novel avenues for protein therapeutic optimization [5].

The core workflow from multiple sequence alignment to statistical inference represents a critical pipeline for validating ancestral protein functions in vivo. When properly executed, this process enables researchers to move beyond correlation-based observations to direct experimental testing of evolutionary hypotheses. The resurrection and characterization of ancestral proteins provides concrete, experimentally validated insights into ancient evolutionary processes and helps illuminate the complex relationship between protein sequence, structure, and function [17]. This is especially valuable for pharmaceutical applications, where ancestral proteins with enhanced stability, expression, or reduced immunogenicity can offer significant advantages over their modern counterparts [5].

Multiple Sequence Alignment: The Critical Foundation

Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) establishes the foundational framework for all subsequent phylogenetic analysis and ancestral reconstruction. The reliability of MSA results directly determines the credibility of downstream biological conclusions, making this initial step paramount to the entire workflow [18]. Alignment algorithms systematically identify homologous positions across sequences, creating a matrix where evolutionarily related sites are arranged in columns, thus enabling meaningful comparative analysis.

Alignment Tool Comparison

Different alignment tools employ distinct algorithms and heuristic strategies to balance the competing demands of accuracy, speed, and scalability, particularly when handling large datasets common in modern genomic studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Multiple Sequence Alignment Tools

Tool	Primary Algorithm	Key Strengths	Optimal Use Cases
MUSCLE [19]	Progressive alignment with iterative refinement	High accuracy for evolutionarily related sequences; consistency in aligned regions	Phylogenetic analyses requiring high-quality alignments of moderately large datasets
Clustal Omega [19]	Progressive alignment with HMM refinement	Scalability for large datasets; parallel processing capabilities; memory efficiency	Large-scale genomic/proteomic datasets where computational efficiency is crucial
T-Coffee [19]	Hybrid progressive alignment with consistency	Combines accuracy with speed; emphasis on alignment consistency	Critical alignments where accuracy outweighs computational time concerns
MAFFT [20]	Fast Fourier Transform approaches	Speed with high accuracy; various options for different accuracy/speed tradeoffs	Large-scale alignments, including those with long sequences or many taxa

Post-Alignment Processing and Quality Considerations

MSA is inherently an NP-hard problem, making it theoretically impossible to guarantee a globally optimal solution [18]. Consequently, post-processing methods have emerged as an important strategy for improving initial alignment quality. These methods refine preliminary alignments to correct errors and optimize the arrangement of sequences. Advancements in this area focus on developing more efficient algorithms and enhancing alignment quality through post-processing optimization, both crucial for improving the overall accuracy of phylogenetic inferences [18].

Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Mapping Evolutionary Relationships

Once a reliable MSA is obtained, the next critical step involves inferring phylogenetic relationships among the sequences. Phylogenetic trees serve as fundamental pillars in biological research, elucidating evolutionary relationships among organisms and offering profound insights into their shared history [20]. These trees provide the graphical and mathematical structure upon which ancestral sequences are statistically inferred.

Tree-Building Methodologies

Phylogenetic inference methods fall into two primary categories, each with distinct advantages and limitations:

• Distance-based methods calculate genetic distances between sequence pairs and use the resulting matrices to build trees [20]. These approaches are computationally efficient but may lose information by reducing sequence data to pairwise distances.
• Character-based methods—including maximum parsimony, maximum likelihood, and Bayesian inference—compare all sequences in an alignment simultaneously, considering one site at a time to calculate scores for each possible tree [20]. These methods typically provide more accurate trees but are computationally intensive, as identifying the tree with the highest score requires comparing a vast number of possible topologies.

Computational Advances in Phylogenetics

The exponential growth of genetic data has intensified computational burdens in phylogenetic analysis, creating substantial time constraints and increasing demands for computational resources [20]. Recent innovations address these challenges through various strategies. Tools like FastTree, PhyloBayes MPI, ExaBayes, and RAxML-NG implement heuristic tree search methods that accelerate and parallelize calculations [20]. Meanwhile, machine learning approaches such as PhyloTune leverage pretrained DNA language models to rapidly integrate new taxa into existing phylogenetic frameworks by identifying taxonomic units and extracting high-attention genomic regions for targeted subtree updates [20].

Statistical Inference of Ancestral Sequences: Computational Resurrection

With a robust phylogenetic tree in place, researchers can statistically infer the sequences of ancestral proteins at various nodes within the tree. This computational "resurrection" represents the core of ASR, transforming phylogenetic hypotheses into testable protein sequences.

Reconstruction Methods and Evolutionary Models

The accuracy of ancestral reconstruction depends critically on both the inference method and the evolutionary model employed:

• Parsimony methods identify ancestral states that minimize the total number of evolutionary changes across the tree [21]. While computationally efficient, these methods are known to produce systematic biases, particularly for deeper nodes where multiple changes at single sites become more probable [21].
• Likelihood-based methods employ explicit models of sequence evolution to compute the probability of ancestral states given the observed data and phylogenetic tree. These methods have been demonstrated superior to parsimony, with one study showing probability values of correctly reconstructed amino acids ranging from 91.3% to 98.7% for likelihood analysis compared to significantly lower accuracy for parsimony [22].
• Averaging weighted by posterior probabilities (AWP) addresses reconstruction bias by averaging over multiple possible reconstructions at each site, using their posterior probabilities as weights [21]. This approach substantially reduces systematic biases inherent in methods relying on single best reconstructions.
• Expected Markov Counting (EMC) is a newer method that produces maximum-likelihood estimates of substitution counts for any branch under a nonstationary Markov model [21]. This approach has shown particular promise for accurately recovering substitution counts even under complex scenarios of parameter fluctuation.

Table 2: Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Methods

Method	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Parsimony [21]	Minimizes number of evolutionary changes	Computational simplicity; intuitive logic	Systematic biases; poor performance with divergent sequences
Maximum Likelihood [22]	Maximizes probability of observed data under evolutionary model	Statistical robustness; higher accuracy than parsimony	Computationally intensive; dependent on model specification
AWP [21]	Averages over reconstructions weighted by posterior probabilities	Reduces bias compared to single reconstruction	Model misspecification can still affect weights
EMC [21]	Maximum-likelihood estimates under nonstationary model	Handles complex nonstationary evolution	Increased computational complexity

Addressing Model Selection and Uncertainty

The choice of evolutionary model significantly impacts reconstruction accuracy. Stationary models like HKY assume consistent substitution patterns across lineages, while nonstationary models (e.g., HKY-NH, HKY-NHb, nonstationary GTR) allow parameters such as base composition and substitution rates to vary across branches [21]. Research demonstrates that the nonstationary GTR model, used with AWP or EMC, accurately recovers substitution counts even in cases of complex parameter fluctuations, whereas stationary models can produce substantial biases when evolutionary processes are nonstationary [21].

Statistical uncertainty in reconstructed sequences is inevitable, particularly at sites with ambiguous support for multiple amino acid states. However, experimental studies have demonstrated that qualitative conclusions about ancestral proteins' functions and the effects of key historical mutations are generally robust to this uncertainty, with similar functions observed even when scores of alternative amino acids are incorporated [23]. The "worst plausible case" method, which incorporates the alternative amino acid state at every ambiguous site into a single protein, provides an efficient strategy for characterizing functional robustness to large amounts of sequence uncertainty [23].

Experimental Validation: From In Silico to In Vivo Analysis

Computational predictions of ancestral sequences must ultimately be validated through experimental characterization, creating a critical bridge between bioinformatics and wet-lab biology. This transition from in silico inference to in vivo validation represents the definitive test of ASR hypotheses.

Functional Characterization of Ancestral Proteins

Comprehensive experimental characterization typically assesses multiple biochemical and biophysical properties relevant to protein function:

• Biosynthetic efficiency measures protein expression and folding capabilities, with some ancestral FVIII variants showing 9-14-fold higher expression than human FVIII [5].
• Biochemical stability assesses structural integrity under various conditions, with ancestral FVIII proteins in the rodent lineage displaying progressively extended decay half-lives (up to 15.6 minutes for An-68 compared to more rapid decay in primate/hominid variants) [5].
• Functional activity quantifies catalytic or binding capabilities using appropriate activity assays.
• Immunological profiling evaluates immune recognition, with certain ancestral FVIII variants showing markedly reduced cross-reactivity to monoclonal antibodies targeting clinically relevant epitopes [5].

In Vivo Therapeutic Applications

The ultimate validation of ancestral protein function often occurs in vivo, particularly for therapeutic applications. For coagulation Factor VIII, ancestral variants have demonstrated superior performance in hemophilia A mouse models, with ED50 estimates of 89 and 47 units/kg for ancestral variants An-53 and An-68 respectively [5]. In gene therapy contexts, ancestral FVIII transgenes produced higher plasma FVIII activity levels compared to human FVIII or human/porcine hybrids following hydrodynamic plasmid DNA infusion and intravenous AAV vector delivery [5].

Research Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Materials

Successful implementation of the ASR workflow requires specialized reagents and computational resources carefully selected for each stage of the process.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Materials

Category	Specific Items	Function/Purpose
Computational Tools	Phylogenetic software (RAxML, PhyloBayes), Alignment tools (MUSCLE, MAFFT), ASR algorithms	Sequence analysis, tree building, ancestral inference
Laboratory Materials	SP-Sepharose, Source-Q chromatography resins, Tricorn columns [5]	Protein purification and separation
Molecular Biology Reagents	Lipofectamine 2000, Power SYBR PCR Master Mix, RNAlater [5], custom synthetic genes	Nucleic acid manipulation, transfection, gene synthesis
Experimental Models	Hemophilia A mouse models, cell lines for recombinant protein expression [5]	In vivo and in vitro functional validation
Fradimycin A	Fradimycin A	Fradimycin A for research. Explore its antimicrobial and potent antiproliferative activity against glioma cells. For Research Use Only. Not for human use.
Acid Brown 354	Acid Brown 354, CAS:71799-43-4, MF:C30H20N8Na2O12S2, MW:794.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Visualizing the Workflow

The entire process from sequence collection to functional validation follows a logical, sequential pathway with multiple feedback loops for refinement.

The integrated workflow from multiple sequence alignment through phylogenetic analysis to statistical inference of ancestral sequences represents a powerful framework for probing protein evolution and function. When coupled with robust experimental validation, this approach provides unprecedented insights into molecular evolution while generating novel protein variants with enhanced pharmaceutical properties. The continuing development of more accurate alignment algorithms, sophisticated evolutionary models, and high-throughput characterization methods will further expand the utility of ASR in both basic research and therapeutic applications.

The resurrection of ancestral proteins to study their function in vivo provides a powerful window into molecular evolution. However, the fidelity of these biological insights rests upon a critical, foundational step: the selection of an appropriate evolutionary model to reconstruct the ancestral sequences. An incorrectly chosen model can lead to inaccurate ancestral sequences, potentially causing researchers to draw false conclusions about functional divergence. This guide compares the performance of different evolutionary models and software tools in ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR), providing experimental data and protocols to inform the selection process for in vivo functional validation studies.

Why Model Selection Matters: Evidence from Experimental Benchmarking

The choice of evolutionary model is not merely a theoretical concern; it has demonstrable, quantitative effects on the accuracy of reconstructed sequences and, more importantly, their biological properties. A key experimental study created a known phylogeny of 19 fluorescent protein (FP) variants to benchmark ASR algorithms against known ancestral genotypes and phenotypes [24]. This benchmark revealed that while all algorithms showed high sequence-level accuracy (97.88-98.17%), they differed significantly in their ability to recover correct protein phenotypes when sequences were incorrectly inferred [24].

Table 1: Performance of ASR Algorithms on Experimental Fluorescent Protein Phylogeny

Algorithm	Method Category	Rate Variation	Sequence Accuracy	Phenotypic Error (Brightness)
PAML_Γ	Bayesian	Gamma distributed	98.17%	Lowest (p < 0.01 vs. MP)
FastML_Γ	Bayesian	Gamma distributed	98.17%	Lowest (p < 0.01 vs. MP)
PAML	Bayesian	Homogeneous	98.10%	Moderate
PHYLO_Γ	Bayesian (aware)	Gamma distributed	97.88%	Moderate
MP	Maximum Parsimony	N/A	98.03%	Highest

Bayesian methods incorporating rate variation across sites (discrete gamma distribution Γ) significantly outperformed maximum parsimony (MP) in phenotypic accuracy, particularly for properties like extinction coefficients and brightness (p < 0.01) [24]. This demonstrates that model selection directly impacts the functional characteristics of resurrected proteins—a crucial consideration for in vivo studies where protein abundance and stability influence biological activity.

Comparative Analysis of Evolutionary Modeling Approaches

Model Types and Methodologies

Evolutionary models for ASR differ in their underlying assumptions and computational approaches:

• Maximum Parsimony (MP) favors the evolutionary pathway requiring the fewest amino acid changes. While computationally efficient, it often oversimplifies evolution by ignoring multiple substitutions at sites and variation in evolutionary rates across sequences [1] [24].

• Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods identify the tree and ancestral sequences with the highest probability of producing the observed data under a specific evolutionary model. ML can incorporate complex evolutionary parameters, including site-specific rate variation and different substitution matrices [25].

• Bayesian methods incorporate prior knowledge about evolutionary parameters and use Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) sampling to estimate posterior probabilities of ancestral states. These methods naturally accommodate parameter uncertainty and model complexity, including rate variation across sites [24].

The Critical Role of Rate Variation

A key differentiator in model performance is the handling of evolutionary rate variation across sequence sites. Models that incorporate a discrete gamma distribution (Γ) to account for this variation consistently outperform those assuming rate homogeneity [24]. This is biologically intuitive: in real proteins, active sites and structural residues typically evolve more slowly than surface loops, creating a distribution of evolutionary rates across the sequence.

Specialized Models for Different Protein Types

Evolutionary constraints differ significantly between ordered and disordered proteins. Research comparing models of evolution for these protein classes found that disordered proteins accept more evolutionary changes with nonconservative substitutions, necessitating different substitution matrices than those used for ordered proteins [26]. This suggests that model selection should consider the structural properties of the protein family under investigation.

Experimental Protocols for Model Selection and Validation

Benchmarking Workflow for Model Assessment

For researchers embarking on ASR projects, particularly those aimed at in vivo functional validation, we recommend the following experimental protocol for model selection:

• Data Collection and Alignment: Assemble a comprehensive set of homologous sequences and create multiple sequence alignments using different methods (e.g., Muscle, MSAProbs) [25]. Evaluate alignment consistency as disagreements can significantly impact downstream analyses.

• Model Testing: Use software such as MEGA or PhyloBot to compare different evolutionary models [27] [25]. These tools provide built-in functions for statistical model selection based on Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) or Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC).

• Ancestral Reconstruction: Reconstruct ancestral sequences using at least two different methods (e.g., Bayesian with gamma-distributed rates and maximum likelihood) to assess consistency [24].

• Sensitivity Analysis: Perform subsampling analyses to test the robustness of your reconstructions. The ASPEN methodology demonstrates that features robust across subsamples are more likely to be accurate [28].

• Experimental Validation: Whenever possible, resurrect multiple variants of contested ancestral residues and test their functional properties in vivo to confirm phylogenetic predictions [24].

ASPEN: A Framework for Quantifying Uncertainty

The ASPEN (Accuracy through Subsampling of Protein Evolution) methodology addresses reconstruction uncertainty by generating ensemble models through sequence subsampling [28]. This approach:

• Quantifies reconstruction uncertainty by subsampling from available ortholog sequences
• Measures the distribution of relationships across hundreds of models
• Identifies topological features most consistent with robust phylogenetic signal
• Provides a meta-algorithm that selects topologies most consistent with features extracted from the ensemble

ASPEN demonstrates that reproducibility across subsamples correlates with accuracy, providing a measurable value for something previously unknowable—the confidence in a single-alignment reconstruction [28].

Table 2: Key Research Reagents and Computational Tools for ASR

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Application in ASR
PAML	Software package	Bayesian phylogenetic analysis	Ancestral sequence reconstruction with rate variation models [24]
PhyloBot	Web portal	Automated phylogenetics and ASR	User-friendly pipeline integrating alignment, model selection, and reconstruction [25]
MEGA	Software package	Molecular evolutionary genetics analysis	Model testing, tree building, and evolutionary distance calculation [27]
Experimental Phylogeny	Benchmarking system	Validation of ASR algorithms	Ground-truth testing of reconstructed sequences against known ancestors [24]
Fluorescent Proteins	Model system	Phenotypic readout of protein function	Direct visualization of ancestral protein function in vivo [24]

Emerging Methods and Future Directions

Integrating Language Models and Evolutionary Information

Recent advances in protein language models (pLMs) like ESM-2 offer new approaches for fitness prediction that complement traditional phylogenetic methods [29] [30]. The EvoIF framework integrates within-family evolutionary information from homologous sequences with cross-family structural–evolutionary constraints distilled from inverse folding logits [30]. This fusion of sequence and structural evolutionary information represents a promising direction for improving the accuracy of ancestral sequence inference.

Addressing In Vivo Validation Challenges

A persistent challenge in ASR is the limited number of studies that validate ancestral protein functions in vivo. While in vitro analyses often show ancestral proteins with increased thermostability and catalytic promiscuity, these "ancestral superiority" traits are not always recapitulated in vivo [1]. Future work should focus on:

• Developing models that better predict in vivo functionality
• Incorporating cellular context into evolutionary models
• Increasing the number of in vivo validation studies across diverse protein families

Selecting the best-fitting evolutionary model is not a mere computational formality but a critical determinant of success in ancestral protein resurrection studies. Experimental evidence demonstrates that Bayesian methods incorporating rate variation across sites consistently outperform maximum parsimony and homogeneous models in both sequence accuracy and functional prediction. For researchers planning in vivo functional validation of ancestral proteins, we recommend a rigorous approach that includes model comparison using statistical criteria, sensitivity analysis through subsampling, and experimental validation of contested residues. As the field advances, integrating traditional phylogenetic methods with emerging approaches from protein language modeling and structural bioinformatics promises to further enhance the accuracy and biological relevance of ancestral reconstructions.

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) has emerged as a powerful technique that enables scientists to resurrect ancient proteins, providing a unique window into molecular evolution. This methodology combines phylogenetic analysis with experimental biochemistry to create plausible approximations of proteins that existed deep in the evolutionary past. While ASR generates valuable hypotheses about ancestral gene function, interpreting what these resurrected sequences truly represent requires careful validation, particularly within living systems. This guide examines the core principles of ASR, compares various methodological approaches, and evaluates techniques for validating the functional significance of resurrected ancestral proteins in vivo, offering researchers a framework for critically assessing ASR-based claims in evolutionary and biomedical research.

Principles and Methodologies of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Theoretical Foundations

ASR operates on the principle that closely related species share similar DNA sequences, and by comparing extant sequences across a phylogeny, we can infer probable ancestral states [1]. The technique was first suggested in 1963 by Linus Pauling and Emile Zuckerkandl, who envisioned it as the foundation for a field they termed "Paleobiochemistry" [1]. Modern ASR does not claim to recreate the exact historical sequence but rather generates a sequence that likely represents the functional characteristics of the ancestral protein, operating under the "neutral network" model of protein evolution where genotypically different but phenotypically similar sequences can occupy the same functional space [1].

The accuracy of ASR depends heavily on multiple factors: the quality and diversity of the input sequences, the alignment methodology, the phylogenetic tree construction, and the reconstruction algorithm itself [1] [31]. Importantly, ASR-generated sequences are considered hypothetical approximations of ancient proteins, whose true biological significance must be validated through experimental testing, especially in vivo where full cellular contexts are present [1].

Reconstruction Algorithms and Their Applications

ASR primarily employs three computational approaches, each with distinct strengths and limitations:

• Maximum Likelihood (ML) methods predict residues at each position that are most likely to explain the observed extant sequences, using scoring matrices calculated from modern sequences [1]. ML is currently the most widely used approach in ASR studies.

• Bayesian methods complement ML approaches but typically produce more ambiguous sequences with probability distributions over possible ancestral states [1]. These are valuable for assessing uncertainty in reconstructions.

• Maximum Parsimony (MP) constructs sequences based on a model of sequence evolution that minimizes the number of required changes [1]. MP is often considered less reliable for deep reconstructions as it may oversimplify evolutionary processes.

Recent methodological advances like GRASP (Graphical Representation of Ancestral Sequence Predictions) enable ASR from datasets exceeding 10,000 sequences and better handle insertion and deletion (indel) events using partial order graphs (POGs) [32]. This scalability allows researchers to leverage the rapidly expanding databases of protein sequences for more accurate ancestral inferences.

Table 1: Comparison of Major ASR Computational Approaches

Method	Key Principle	Advantages	Limitations
Maximum Likelihood	Identifies most probable residues given evolutionary model	High accuracy; models evolutionary rates	Computationally intensive; dependent on model selection
Bayesian	Generates probability distributions over possible ancestors	Quantifies uncertainty; incorporates prior knowledge	Produces ambiguous sequences; computationally demanding
Maximum Parsimony	Minimizes number of evolutionary changes	Computationally efficient; simple assumptions	Less accurate for deep time; oversimplifies evolution
GRASP	Uses partial order graphs for indels	Handles large datasets (>10,000 sequences); models indels effectively	Complex implementation; newer with less established track record

Experimental Validation of Resurrected Proteins

In Vitro versus In Vivo Assessment

Most ASR studies are conducted in vitro, where resurrected proteins are expressed, purified, and characterized biochemically [1]. This approach has revealed that many ancestral proteins exhibit what has been termed "ancestral superiority" - properties such as increased thermostability, catalytic activity, and promiscuity compared to modern counterparts [1] [33]. For instance, ancestral resurrected thioredoxins demonstrated significantly elevated thermal and acidic stability while maintaining catalytic efficiency similar to modern enzymes [1].

However, the nascent field of evolutionary biochemistry has recognized that in vitro properties do not always translate to cellular environments. Very few ASR studies have been conducted in vivo due to challenges including the lack of suitably ancient genomes, limited model systems, and inability to mimic ancient cellular environments [1]. A 2015 study noted that "ancestral superiority" observed in vitro was not recapitulated in vivo for a specific protein, highlighting the critical importance of cellular validation [1].

Key Methodologies for Functional Validation

Several experimental approaches have been developed to validate the function of resurrected ancestral proteins:

• Thermal stability assays using techniques like circular dichroism (CD) to monitor temperature-induced unfolding. This method was used to demonstrate that ancestral 3-isopropylmalate dehydrogenase (IPMDH) enzymes had higher thermal stability (Tm = 88-90°C) compared to extant thermophilic homologs (Tm = 86°C) [33].

• Direct in vivo stability measurement through incorporation of structurally non-perturbing binding motifs for bis-arsenical fluorescein derivatives that report unfolding transitions within cells [34]. This approach enables quantitative stability determination in living systems like E. coli.

• Enzyme kinetics characterization to determine catalytic efficiency (kcat/KM) across temperatures. Ancestral IPMDHs showed considerably higher low-temperature catalytic activity compared to thermophilic homologs while maintaining thermal stability [33].

• Continuous evolution systems like Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE) enable laboratory evolution of ancestral proteins to test historical evolutionary trajectories [35]. This approach was used with BCL-2 family proteins to quantify the roles of chance, contingency, and necessity in molecular evolution.

Table 2: Key Biochemical Properties of Resurrected Ancestral Proteins

Protein	Ancestral Age	Key Biochemical Properties	Validation Method
Dicer helicase	Ancient animal ancestor	ATP hydrolysis function; dsRNA-stimulated ATPase activity	Biochemical assays; Michaelis constants analysis [4]
IPMDH	Bacterial common ancestor	Thermal stability (Tm = 88-90°C); high low-temperature activity	Circular dichroism; enzyme kinetics [33]
Thioredoxin	~4 billion years	Elevated thermal/acidic stability; maintained catalytic efficiency	Thermal denaturation; activity assays [1]
BCL-2 family proteins	~800 million years	Divergent protein-protein interaction specificities	PACE; binding specificity assays [35]

Case Studies in ASR Validation

Dicer Helicase Domain Evolution

A 2023 study used ASR to resurrect the helicase domain of Dicer proteins across animal evolution, tracing the evolutionary trajectory of ATP hydrolysis function [4]. The research revealed that ancient Dicer possessed ATPase activity that was stimulated by double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), while vertebrate ancestors lost this capability due to reduced affinity for both dsRNA and ATP [4].

Experimental validation showed that reverting residues in the ATP hydrolysis pocket was insufficient to rescue hydrolysis function in vertebrate Dicer, but additional substitutions distant from the active site partially restored ATPase function [4]. This suggests that loss of function resulted from compromised coupling between dsRNA binding and active site conformation, potentially allowed by the emergence of RIG-I-like receptors that took over viral RNA sensing functions in vertebrates [4].

Contingency in BCL-2 Family Protein Evolution

A landmark study combining ASR with continuous evolution technology examined the roles of chance, contingency, and necessity in the evolution of BCL-2 family proteins [35]. Researchers synthesized ancestral BCL-2 proteins from various evolutionary periods and evolved them repeatedly under selection to acquire specific protein-protein interaction functions that emerged historically.

The results demonstrated that "contingency generated over long historical timescales steadily erased necessity and overwhelmed chance" [35]. Evolutionary trajectories launched from phylogenetically distant ancestral proteins yielded virtually no common mutations, even under identical selection pressures. This suggests that patterns of variation in these protein sequences are "idiosyncratic products of a particular and unpredictable course of historical events" [35], highlighting the importance of historical contingency in molecular evolution.

Engineering Ancestral Enzymes for Biotechnology

ASR has proven valuable for creating enzymes with desirable properties for biotechnology. A 2020 study designed two ancestral sequences of 3-isopropylmalate dehydrogenase (IPMDH) using ASR [33]. The resurrected enzymes exhibited higher thermal stability than extant thermophilic homologs while maintaining significantly higher catalytic activity at lower temperatures [33].

Detailed biochemical characterization showed that the ancestral enzymes had catalytic properties similar to mesophilic enzymes despite their thermophilic-level stability, demonstrating that ASR can produce enzymes combining thermophilic stability with mesophilic catalytic efficiency [33]. This suggests ancestral enzymes may provide superior starting points for protein engineering compared to modern extremophilic enzymes, which often exhibit trade-offs between stability and activity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagent Solutions for ASR Studies

Reagent/Technique	Function in ASR	Application Example
GRASP software	Infers ancestral sequences from large datasets (>10,000 sequences); models indel events	Reconstruction of glucose-methanol-choline oxidoreductases, cytochromes P450 [32]
Bis-arsenical fluorescein dyes	Report protein unfolding in vivo for direct stability measurement in cellular environments	In vivo stability measurement of cellular retinoic acid-binding protein in E. coli [34]
Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution	Enables continuous directed evolution of ancestral proteins under controlled selection pressures	Evolution of BCL-2 family proteins to acquire historical protein-protein interaction specificities [35]
Partial Order Graphs	Represent and infer insertion/deletion events across ancestors	Handling indel events in ancestral sequence reconstruction [32]
Heterologous expression systems	Produce resurrected ancestral proteins in model organisms	Expression of ancestral IPMDH in E. coli for biochemical characterization [33]
Dapma	Dapma|Cationic Lipid for Nanocarrier Research	Dapma is a cationic lipid for research-use-only (RUO) nanocarriers and drug delivery systems. It enables pH-sensitive release and cellular targeting.
Tricos-14-enoic acid	Tricos-14-enoic acid, CAS:105305-00-8, MF:C23H44O2, MW:352.6 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Experimental Workflows and Signaling Pathways

The following diagrams illustrate key experimental workflows and conceptual frameworks in ASR validation studies:

ASR Experimental Workflow

Factors Influencing Protein Functional Evolution

Resurrected ancestral sequences represent statistically inferred hypotheses about historical molecular forms that must be rigorously validated through both in vitro and in vivo approaches. While ASR provides powerful insights into evolutionary processes, the true biological meaning of these reconstructed nodes emerges only through experimental testing in appropriate contexts. The growing integration of ASR with directed evolution and continuous evolution platforms offers promising avenues for exploring historical protein sequence space and engineering novel biocatalysts [36]. For researchers in drug development and molecular evolution, critically evaluating ASR studies requires careful attention to both methodological details of reconstruction and the strength of functional validation evidence. As the field advances, increased emphasis on in vivo validation will be essential for fully interpreting what resurrected ancestral sequences truly represent in the context of living systems.

From Sequence to Living System: Methodologies for In Vivo Characterization

The reconstruction of ancestral proteins provides a powerful window into evolutionary history, enabling researchers to test hypotheses about the functions, stability, and mechanisms of ancient biomolecules. This approach has illuminated evolutionary trajectories across diverse protein families, such as the Dicer helicase domain, where ancestral reconstruction revealed key events in the loss of ATPase function during vertebrate evolution [4]. However, a significant challenge in this field lies in the effective synthesis and expression of these inferred ancestral sequences in modern host systems. Since these ancient proteins never existed in contemporary organisms, their codon usage and sequence properties are often incompatible with modern expression hosts, frequently resulting in poor protein yields, improper folding, or complete expression failure.

Successfully bridging this gap requires a sophisticated integration of gene synthesis and multi-parameter expression optimization. This guide objectively compares the tools and methodologies that enable researchers to move from ancestral sequence reconstruction to functional protein characterization, with a specific focus on validating inferred functions in vivo. The process is foundational for making robust conclusions about molecular evolution and for harnessing ancient protein variants for therapeutic development [4].

Comparative Analysis of Codon Optimization Tools

Codon optimization is a critical first step, moving beyond simple codon usage matching to a holistic consideration of multiple sequence parameters. Different tools employ distinct algorithms and weight these parameters differently, leading to variability in the performance of the resulting synthetic genes [37].

Performance Metrics and Tool Comparison

A comprehensive 2025 analysis compared widely used codon optimization tools using industrially relevant proteins expressed in E. coli, S. cerevisiae, and CHO cells [37]. The study evaluated tools based on their ability to align with host-specific codon biases and key parameters like Codon Adaptation Index (CAI), GC content, and mRNA secondary structure.

Table 1: Comparison of Codon Optimization Tool Strategies and Performance

Tool Name	Optimization Strategy	Key Strengths	Reported Host Organisms
JCat	Codon adaptation based on genome-wide codon usage	Simple, fast; strong alignment with highly expressed genes [37].	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, CHO [37]
OPTIMIZER	User-defined reference set for codon usage	Flexible; allows custom codon usage tables [37].	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, CHO [37]
ATGme	Integrated primer design and optimization	All-in-one solution for synthesis and cloning [37].	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, CHO [37]
GeneOptimizer	Multi-parameter, iterative algorithm	Simultaneously balances >100 parameters; proven high expression [37] [38].	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, CHO, HEK293 [37] [38]
TISIGNER	Structure-aware optimization	Considers mRNA stability and tRNA kinetics; unique approach [37].	E. coli, S. cerevisiae, CHO [37]

Table 2: Quantitative Output of Optimization Tools for a Model Protein (Human Insulin in E. coli)

Tool	Codon Adaptation Index (CAI)	GC Content (%)	mRNA Folding Energy (ΔG)
JCat	0.89	52.1	-245.3
OPTIMIZER	0.91	50.8	-251.7
GeneOptimizer	0.94	53.5	-238.9
TISIGNER	0.85	48.2	-225.1

The data reveals that tools like GeneOptimizer, JCat, and OPTIMIZER tend to produce sequences with high CAI values, indicating strong adaptation to the host's preferred codons [37]. In contrast, tools like TISIGNER may employ different strategies that prioritize other factors, such as mRNA structural stability, sometimes at the expense of a perfect CAI score [37]. This highlights a crucial point: there is no single "best" tool, as the optimal choice depends on the target protein and host system. For ancestral protein studies, where sequences can be particularly challenging, a multi-parameter tool like GeneOptimizer has demonstrated success, with one study showing 86% of optimized genes exhibited significantly increased expression, and protein yields increased by up to 15-fold compared to wild-type sequences [38].

Key Parameters for Effective Optimization

The following parameters are critical for designing genes that express well in modern host systems [37] [39] [38]:

• Codon Adaptation Index (CAI): Measures the similarity between a gene's codon usage and the preferred codon usage of highly expressed genes in the target host. A CAI >0.8 is generally considered optimal for high expression [37] [40].
• GC Content: The percentage of guanine and cytosine bases in the sequence. Optimal ranges are host-specific (e.g., moderate GC is often best for CHO cells), impacting mRNA stability and secondary structure [37].
• mRNA Secondary Structure: Stable secondary structures, especially in the 5' end, can impede translation initiation. Gibbs free energy (ΔG) is a key indicator, where less stable folding (higher ΔG) can facilitate ribosome binding [37] [39].
• Codon Pair Bias (CPB): The non-random usage of pairs of adjacent codons, which can influence translational efficiency and fidelity in the host [37].

Gene Synthesis and Assembly Methodologies

Once a sequence is optimized, it must be synthesized de novo. For ancestral proteins, no natural DNA template exists, making robust and accurate gene synthesis protocols essential [40] [41].

From Oligonucleotides to Full-Length Genes

The foundation of gene synthesis is the assembly of overlapping oligonucleotides into a full-length double-stranded DNA molecule. Key advancements have focused on improving throughput, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness.

Table 3: Comparison of Gene Synthesis and Assembly Techniques

Method	Principle	Throughput	Key Advantages	Limitations
Polymerase Chain Assembly (PCA)	Single-reaction PCR assembly of a pool of overlapping oligonucleotides [40].	Medium	Simple and fast; no oligonucleotide phosphorylation required [40].	Error-prone; requires post-assembly error correction [40].
Two-Step DA-PCR/OE-PCR	Dual Asymmetrical PCR followed by Overlap-Extension PCR [40].	Medium	Higher accuracy than single-step PCA [40].	More complex workflow [40].
Microarray-Derived Synthesis	Oligonucleotides synthesized in parallel on a silicon chip via photolithography or ink-jet printing [41].	Very High	Extremely high throughput; low cost per sequence [41].	Oligonucleotides are shorter and require amplification; higher initial error rates [41].
Automated Column Synthesizers	Traditional phosphoramidite chemistry on controlled pore glass (CPG) columns [41].	Low to Medium	High-quality, long oligonucleotides (up to 200 nt); well-established [41].	Higher cost per sequence; lower throughput [41].

Automation is revolutionizing this field. Integrated liquid handling workstations can now perform repetitive synthesis and assembly tasks, reducing manual labor and increasing reproducibility for building large libraries of synthetic genes, a key requirement for screening multiple ancestral variants [41].

Error Correction and Cloning

A major bottleneck in gene synthesis is the accumulation of errors from imperfect oligonucleotides or polymerase mistakes during assembly. Techniques to address this include:

• Oligonucleotide Purification: Using HPLC or PAGE to remove truncated oligonucleotides [41].
• Enzymatic Error Correction: Employing mismatch-cleaving enzymes or selective digestion of non-full-length products [40].
• High-Fidelity Sequencing Verification: Sanger or NGS confirmation of cloned synthetic genes is essential before expression testing.

For cloning, modern Ligation-Independent Cloning (LIC) methods are highly efficient, allowing the direct integration of the synthetic PCR product into an expression vector without the need for restriction enzymes or ligases [40].

Experimental Protocols for Expression Validation

After synthesizing and cloning the optimized ancestral gene, rigorous experimental validation is required to confirm successful expression and function.

Workflow for Ancestral Protein Expression

The following diagram outlines a generalized workflow for expressing and validating a resurrected ancestral protein.

Detailed Methodologies for Key Steps

Protocol 1: Small-Scale Test Expression in E. coli This protocol is adapted for evaluating expression of ancestral protein variants in a high-throughput format [42].

• Transformation: Transform the synthesized gene in an expression vector (e.g., pET series) into an appropriate E. coli strain such as:

  • BL21(DE3): For standard, non-toxic proteins.
  • Rosetta(DE3): Provides tRNAs for rare codons, crucial for non-bacterial ancient sequences [42].
  • SHuffle or Origami: For proteins requiring disulfide bond formation [42].
  • Lemo21(DE3): Allows tunable expression, ideal for optimizing yields of difficult or toxic proteins [42].

• Culture and Induction: Inoculate 2-5 mL of auto-induction media or LB with the appropriate antibiotic. Grow cultures at 37°C until OD600 reaches ~0.6-0.8. Induce protein expression by adding IPTG (typically 0.1-1.0 mM). Lower temperatures (e.g., 16-25°C) and reduced inducer concentrations can be tested to enhance soluble expression [42].

• Harvesting: Pellet cells by centrifugation 4-16 hours post-induction. Resuspend in lysis buffer for analysis.

Protocol 2: Functional Assay for a Resurrected Dicer Helicase This specific protocol is based on research that reconstructed ancestral Dicer proteins to trace the evolution of ATP hydrolysis [4].

• Protein Purification: Express and purify the ancestral helicase domain (e.g., fused to a His-tag) using immobilized metal affinity chromatography (IMAC).

• ATPase Activity Assay:

  • Reaction Setup: Incubate the purified protein (e.g., 100 nM) in a buffer containing ATP (e.g., 1 mM) and Mg²⁺. To test for dsRNA stimulation, include a long dsRNA substrate (e.g., 500 ng/μL).
  • Detection Method: Use a colorimetric assay (e.g., malachite green) to quantify inorganic phosphate (Pi) released over time. Alternatively, a coupled enzymatic assay using NADH oxidation can monitor ATP consumption.
  • Kinetic Analysis: Determine Michaelis constants (KM for ATP) by varying ATP concentration in the presence and absence of dsRNA. As demonstrated in the Dicer study, ancestral forms showed increased ATP affinity (lower KM) in the presence of dsRNA, a property lost in vertebrate ancestors [4].

Protocol 3: Enhancing Solubility via Fusion Tags and Chaperone Co-expression For ancestral proteins that express insolubly in inclusion bodies [43] [42]:

• Fusion Partners: Subclone the ancestral gene into vectors encoding solubility-enhancing fusion partners such as Maltose-Binding Protein (MBP), Glutathione-S-Transferase (GST), or Small Ubiquitin-like Modifier (SUMO). Test different tags empirically.

• Co-expression with Chaperones: Co-transform the expression vector with a plasmid expressing chaperone systems like GroEL/GroES or DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE. Alternatively, use commercial E. coli strains engineered to overexpress these chaperones.

• Solubility Analysis: Lyse the cells and separate the soluble (supernatant) and insoluble (pellet) fractions by centrifugation. Analyze both fractions by SDS-PAGE to determine the distribution of the expressed protein.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Success in ancestral protein expression relies on a carefully selected set of biological reagents and tools.

Table 4: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Ancestral Protein Expression

Reagent / Solution	Function / Application	Examples & Notes
Specialized E. coli Strains	Provides specific cellular environments to aid expression and folding.	Rosetta: Supplies rare tRNAs. SHuffle: Promotes disulfide bond formation. Lemo21(DE3): Allows tunable expression to mitigate toxicity [42].
Tunable Expression Vectors	Plasmid systems with regulated promoters for controlling protein yield.	pET Series (T7 promoter): Strong, IPTG-inducible. pBAD Series (araBAD promoter): Tightly regulated by arabinose. Rhamex Vectors (rhaBAD promoter): Enable fine-tuning of expression levels [42].
Solubility Enhancement Tags	Fusion partners that improve the solubility of recalcitrant proteins.	MBP, GST, SUMO, NusA, Trx. Must often be cleaved off after purification using specific proteases (e.g., TEV, Thrombin) [42].
Chaperone Plasmid Kits	Co-expression plasmids for molecular chaperones that assist in proper protein folding.	Kits for GroEL/GroES and DnaK/DnaJ/GrpE systems. Can be co-transformed or used in engineered strains [43].
Auto-induction Media	Growth media that automatically induces protein expression at high cell density.	Simplifies culture handling; often improves yields for T7/lac-based systems by inducing with lactose after glucose depletion [42].
Ethanol-17O	Ethanol-17O Isotope
ATTO488-ProTx-II	ATTO488-ProTx-II, MW:3826,66 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The functional validation of ancestral proteins hinges on overcoming the translational barrier between historical sequence inference and modern laboratory expression. As this guide demonstrates, this requires a strategic and often iterative process. Researchers must select codon optimization tools that balance multiple parameters, employ high-fidelity gene synthesis and assembly methods, and systematically test expression conditions using a toolkit of specialized reagents. The quantitative data and protocols provided here offer a roadmap for comparing and implementing these technologies. By rigorously applying these principles, scientists can robustly build a bridge to the past, uncovering deep evolutionary insights and opening new avenues for protein engineering and therapeutic design.

The determination of protein three-dimensional structure is fundamental to understanding biological function, a principle that becomes critically important when investigating ancestral proteins. In the context of validating ancestral protein functions in vivo, researchers are increasingly leveraging computational structure prediction tools to generate testable hypotheses about ancient biological mechanisms. While experimental methods like X-ray crystallography, nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), and cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) provide high-resolution structural data, they are complex, time-consuming, and expensive [44]. This has created a significant gap between the number of known protein sequences and those with experimentally resolved structures, with Uniprot containing over 229 million protein sequences compared to only approximately 200,000 structures in the Protein Data Bank (PDB) [44].

AlphaFold 2 (AF2), developed by DeepMind, has emerged as a transformative tool that addresses this disparity by predicting protein structures with accuracy competitive with experimental methods [45]. For researchers studying ancestral proteins, where obtaining experimental structures is particularly challenging, AF2 provides a powerful means to generate structural models that can inform hypothesis generation about ancient biological functions. However, understanding the capabilities and limitations of AF2, especially in comparison with its successor AlphaFold 3 (AF3) and other emerging alternatives, is essential for properly interpreting these predictions and designing appropriate validation experiments. This guide objectively compares the performance of these tools and provides methodologies for their application in ancestral protein research.

AlphaFold 2 and 3: Core Architectures and Performance

AlphaFold 2's Technical Foundation and Accuracy

AlphaFold 2 represents a significant advancement in computational structure prediction through its sophisticated neural network architecture. The system utilizes deep learning trained on PDB structures to predict distances between residues, creating distograms from amino acid sequences. It employs multiple sequence alignment (MSA) features and incorporates a separate network to predict backbone torsion distributions. The combined potential from both outputs is optimized through gradient descent to generate the final protein structure [44].

Extensive validation has demonstrated that AF2 achieves remarkable accuracy in predicting protein structures. The median root mean square deviation (RMSD) between AF2 predictions and experimental structures is approximately 1.0 Ã…, which approaches the median RMSD of 0.6 Ã… between different experimental structures of the same protein [45]. This level of accuracy makes high-confidence regions of AF2 predictions highly reliable for generating structural hypotheses. For side chain positioning, AF2 achieves roughly correct conformations for 93% of residues, with 80% showing a perfect fit to experimental data, compared to 98% and 94% respectively for experimental structures [45].

Table 1: AlphaFold 2 Overall Accuracy Metrics

Metric	Performance	Experimental Baseline	Notes
Global Structure (RMSD)	1.0 Ã… median	0.6 Ã… median	High-confidence regions match experimental baseline
Side Chain Accuracy	93% roughly correct, 80% perfect fit	98% roughly correct, 94% perfect fit	Low-confidence regions show decreased reliability
Domain Prediction	Highly accurate	-	Inter-domain orientations often inaccurate
Confidence Correlation	Strong correlation with accuracy	-	pLDDT scores reliably indicate local precision

AlphaFold 3: Expanded Capabilities and Limitations

AlphaFold 3, released in May 2024, extends the capabilities of AF2 to predict structures of protein complexes with other proteins, nucleic acids, and small molecules [46]. This expanded functionality is particularly valuable for studying ancestral protein complexes and their potential interaction networks. Independent benchmarking following AF3's release has provided insights into its performance characteristics across different biomolecular contexts.

For protein-ligand interactions, AF3 achieves a 64.9% success rate on the overall FoldBench dataset, outperforming the runner-up (Boltz-1) by nearly 10% [46]. Notably, its performance improves to 69.0% on "unseen proteins" (less than 40% sequence identity to training data), suggesting strong generalization capabilities [46]. However, performance on "unseen ligands" (less than 0.5 Tanimoto similarity to training set ligands complexed with homologous proteins) matches overall performance at 64.3%, indicating some limitations in novel chemical space [46].

A critical assessment for drug discovery applications revealed that AF3 excels at predicting static protein-ligand interactions where minimal conformational changes occur upon binding (protein RMSD < 0.5Ã… compared to apo state) [46]. In such cases, it significantly outperforms traditional docking methods, particularly in side-chain orientation accuracy. However, the same study noted a persistent bias toward predicting active G protein-coupled receptor (GPCR) conformations regardless of whether the bound ligand was an agonist or antagonist [46].

Table 2: AlphaFold 3 Performance Across Biomolecular Complexes

Complex Type	Success Rate	Strengths	Limitations
Protein-Ligand (Overall)	64.9%	Superior to docking for rigid binding sites	Performance decreases with ligand novelty
Protein-Ligand (Unseen Proteins)	69.0%	Strong generalization for novel proteins	-
Protein-Ligand (Unseen Ligands)	64.3%	Comparable to overall performance	Limited novelty adaptation
Antibody-Antigen	<50% success	Best among tested models	High failure rate remains challenging
Nucleic Acids	Variable	Accurate torsion angles for RNA	Struggles with long RNA structures
Metal-Protein	Realistic predictions	Accurate metal ion coordination	-

Comparative Performance Analysis: AlphaFold 2 vs. AlphaFold 3 vs. Alternatives

GPCR Case Study: Critical Assessment of Ligand Binding Predictions

G protein-coupled receptors represent particularly challenging targets for structure prediction due to their structural flexibility and importance in pharmaceutical development. A specialized evaluation comparing 74 AF3-predicted structures to experimental counterparts revealed that while AF3 accurately captures global receptor architecture and orthosteric binding pockets, its ligand positioning is highly variable and often inaccurate [47]. These limitations render predictions unreliable, particularly for allosteric modulators where precise binding mode characterization is essential.

This analysis builds on previous work evaluating AF2 on GPCRs, which found that while AF2 could capture overall backbone features, significant differences existed in the assembly of extracellular and transmembrane domains, the shape of ligand-binding pockets, and the conformation of transducer-binding interfaces compared to experimental structures [48]. These differences impede the direct use of predicted structures for detailed functional studies and structure-based drug design of GPCRs without experimental validation.

For ancestral protein research, these findings highlight both the utility and limitations of AF3 predictions. While the global receptor architecture may be reliably predicted, generating hypotheses about specific ligand interactions requires caution, particularly for allosteric binding sites that may have evolved in ancient proteins.

Emerging Alternatives and Competitive Landscape

The rapid development of structure prediction tools has produced several alternatives to AlphaFold, each with distinctive capabilities:

• HelixFold-3: Developed by the PaddleHelix team, this model claims accuracy comparable to AF3 across molecular types. In an evaluation focusing on utility for Free Energy Perturbation (FEP) calculations, HelixFold-3 outperformed AF2 in predicting binding site conformations. FEP calculations using HelixFold-3 predicted structures achieved accuracy comparable to those using experimental crystal structures, even for novel ligand derivatives not present in training data [46].

• Chai-1: From the Chai Discovery team, this multi-modal foundation model follows AF3's architecture but incorporates residue-level embeddings from a large protein language model to enhance single-sequence prediction capabilities. It achieves a 77% ligand RMSD success rate on the PoseBusters benchmark, comparable to AF3's 76%, increasing to 81% when prompted with the apo protein structure [46].

• Boltz-2: Building on Boltz-1, this model uniquely offers binding affinity prediction capability alongside structure prediction. It expands training data beyond static structures to include experimental and molecular dynamics ensembles, enhancing user control through conditioning on experimental methods and user-defined constraints. While it performs competitively with other models, it currently lags behind AF3, particularly in antibody-antigen prediction [46].

Table 3: Alternative Structure Prediction Tools Comparison

Tool	Key Features	Performance Highlights	Best Use Cases
HelixFold-3	Builds on prior HelixFold models with AF3 insights	FEP calculations with accuracy matching experimental structures	Binding site conformation studies
Chai-1	Protein language model embeddings; trainable constraint features	77% ligand success rate (81% with apo prompting)	Single-sequence predictions with experimental constraints
Boltz-2	Binding affinity prediction; ensemble training data	Competitive performance but lags AF3 in antibody-antigen	Cases requiring affinity estimates alongside structures
RoseTTAFold All-Atom	Competing neural network method	Realistic metal ion predictions	General biomolecular complexes

Independent Benchmarking Insights

The FoldBench assessment, a comprehensive benchmark for all-atom predictors, provides rigorous comparison of these tools on low-homology targets. Its findings indicate that AF3 consistently demonstrates superior accuracy across most tasks, with particularly strong generalization and robustness properties [46]. However, the benchmark also confirms that significant challenges remain in predicting antibody-antigen complexes, where even AF3's failure rate exceeds 50% [46].

For nucleic acid predictions, particularly RNA, AF3 demonstrates robust generalization for ribosomal structures and accurately reproduces key RNA interactions and torsion angles [46]. However, predicting 3D structures of long RNAs becomes increasingly difficult with sequence length, and AF3 shows limitations in consistently reproducing all non-Watson-Crick interactions crucial for structural stability [46].

Experimental Protocols for Validation

Integrated Workflow for Ancestral Protein Structure Validation

For researchers validating ancestral protein functions, integrating computational predictions with experimental validation requires systematic approaches. The following workflow provides a methodology for generating and testing structural hypotheses:

NMR Validation Protocol for Predicted Structures

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance spectroscopy provides a powerful method for validating predicted structures in solution, closely matching physiological conditions. The following protocol adapts established NMR techniques for assessing AlphaFold predictions:

Sample Preparation

• Express and purify the ancestral protein of interest (15N- and 13C-labeling if needed)
• Optimize buffer conditions for protein stability and NMR compatibility
• Concentrate sample to 0.1-0.5 mM in 300-500 μL volume

Data Collection

• Acquire 2D 1H-15N HSQC spectrum at 25°C (or optimal temperature)
• Collect 3D 15N-edited NOESY-HSQC with 100-150 ms mixing time
• Record complementary experiments for backbone assignments (HNCA, HNCOCA, CBCACONH)
• Additional experiments for side-chain assignments (HCCH-TOCSY) if needed

Data Processing and Analysis

• Process NMR data with appropriate software (NMRPipe, TopSpin)
• Assign backbone chemical shifts using available tools (CCPN Analysis, CARA)
• Calculate Contact Score (CS) and Distance Score (DS) heuristics to quantify agreement between NOESY data and predicted structure [49]
• Utilize Structural Prediction Assessment by NMR (SPANR) model to test prediction accuracy [49]

Structure Refinement

• Use NOE-derived distance restraints for molecular dynamics refinement
• Iteratively adjust predicted structure to match experimental constraints
• Validate final structure using Ramachandran plots and MolProbity

This approach enables researchers to determine whether a predicted structure reasonably describes the protein in solution, with the Contact and Distance Scores providing quantitative measures of agreement between prediction and experimental data [49].

Successful integration of AlphaFold predictions with experimental validation requires specific computational and laboratory resources. The following toolkit outlines essential components for ancestral protein structure-function studies:

Table 4: Research Reagent Solutions for Structural Validation

Resource Category	Specific Tools	Function	Application in Ancestral Protein Studies
Structure Prediction	AlphaFold 2, AlphaFold 3 Server, HelixFold-3, Chai-1	Generate protein and complex structural hypotheses	Initial structural models for ancient proteins
Validation Suites	FoldBench, PoseBusters Benchmark	Independent accuracy assessment	Objective evaluation of prediction quality
NMR Analysis	NMRPipe, CCPN Analysis, CARA	Process and analyze NMR spectra	Experimental validation of solution structures
Molecular Visualization	PyMOL, ChimeraX	Structure visualization and analysis	Creating publication-quality figures and analyzing structural features [50]
Sequence Analysis	BioPython SeqIO, Multiple Sequence Alignment tools	Handle sequence data and evolutionary relationships	Process ancestral sequence data and identify homologous [51] [52]
Molecular Dynamics	GROMACS, AMBER, NAMD	Simulate protein dynamics and flexibility	Assess predicted structure stability and conformational changes
Specialized Frameworks	ABCFold, AlphaBridge	Streamline multi-tool operation and interface analysis	Facilitate comparison of different prediction tools and analyze interaction interfaces [46]

AlphaFold 2 and its successors represent powerful tools for generating structural hypotheses about ancestral proteins, but their limitations necessitate careful implementation within a broader validation framework. For researchers studying ancient protein functions, the most effective approach combines computational predictions with targeted experimental validation, particularly for regions of functional importance like binding sites and conformational interfaces.

The continuing development of structure prediction tools, including AlphaFold 3 and various alternatives, promises increasingly accurate models of biomolecular complexes. However, current evaluations demonstrate that experimental validation remains essential, particularly for precise ligand positioning and allosteric mechanisms. By strategically integrating these computational tools with experimental structural biology techniques, researchers can generate robust hypotheses about ancestral protein functions that can be tested through mutational analysis and functional assays in vivo.

The field has progressed from simply predicting static structures to modeling complex biomolecular interactions, opening new possibilities for understanding ancient biological systems. As these tools evolve, their application to ancestral protein studies will continue to provide insights into the evolutionary mechanisms that shaped modern protein functions, guided by rigorous validation and thoughtful interpretation of both predictions and experimental data.

The functional validation of resurrected ancestral proteins represents a unique challenge at the intersection of evolutionary biology and experimental research. Selecting an appropriate in vivo system is paramount, as the model organism must not only be experimentally tractable but also provide a biologically relevant context for assessing protein function in a living system. Ancestral protein reconstruction (APR) has emerged as a powerful technique, combining phylogenetic inference of ancient sequences with synthesis and experimental characterization to test hypotheses about historical protein functions and the effects of ancient mutations [2]. The reliability of these functional inferences, however, depends significantly on the experimental system used for validation. This guide objectively compares the most common model organisms used in biomedical research, with a specific focus on their applicability for studies validating ancestral protein functions in vivo.

Comparative Analysis of Model Organisms

The table below summarizes key biological and experimental characteristics of widely used model organisms, providing a foundation for selection based on project requirements.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Common Model Organisms

Organism	Type	Generation Time	Genetic Homology to Humans	Key Advantages	Major Limitations
Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Yeast)	Unicellular fungus	~2 hours (doubling) [53]	~23% of genes have human counterparts [53]	Simple, cheap, easy to genetically manipulate; ideal for studying conserved eukaryotic processes [54] [53]	Lacks complex organ systems; limited relevance for multicellular processes [55]
Caenorhabditis elegans (Nematode)	Multicellular nematode	3-4 days [56] [53]	~65% of human disease genes have a homolog [56]	Transparent body for visualization; fully mapped connectome; self-fertile hermaphrodites simplify genetics [56] [57] [53]	Lacks a brain, blood, and defined internal organs; simplistic anatomy [56] [57]
Drosophila melanogaster (Fruit Fly)	Multicellular insect	~12-14 days [56] [53]	~75% of human disease-associated genes have a counterpart [56] [57]	Easy to breed and maintain; extensive genetic tools (e.g., GAL4/UAS); short life cycle [56] [57] [53]	Limited anatomical similarity; cannot be frozen for long-term storage [56] [57]
Danio rerio (Zebrafish)	Vertebrate fish	3-4 months	70-84% of human genes have a homolog; 85% of human disease genes have a zebrafish counterpart [57] [53]	Transparent embryos for live imaging; high fecundity; vertebrate biology; suitable for large-scale screens [57] [55] [53]	Lacks some human-specific structures (e.g., lungs, mammary glands) [57]
Mus musculus (Mouse)	Mammal	10-12 weeks [53]	>80% genetic similarity [57]	Closest physiology to humans among common models; well-established disease models; sophisticated genetic tools [54] [57] [55]	High cost; long life cycle; ethical constraints; susceptible to environmental stress [57]

Table 2: Experimental Tractability and Cost Considerations

Organism	Relative Maintenance Cost	Ease of Genetic Manipulation	Embryonic Accessibility	Throughput Capacity
Yeast	Very Low	Very High	N/A	Very High
C. elegans	Very Low	High	High (external development)	Very High
Fruit Fly	Low	High	High (external development)	High
Zebrafish	Moderate	Moderate to High	High (external fertilization)	High
Mouse	High	Moderate	Low (in utero development)	Low to Moderate

Experimental Protocols for Functional Validation

When validating ancestral protein function, the experimental workflow typically begins with ancestral sequence reconstruction using computational methods such as maximum likelihood or Bayesian inference, which calculate the most probable sequences of ancient proteins based on alignments of modern sequences and a phylogenetic tree [58] [2] [15]. The following protocols outline key in vivo validation approaches across different model systems.

Rapid Functional Screening in Yeast

Yeast provides an unparalleled system for initial, high-throughput functional characterization of resurrected ancestral proteins, especially for enzymes and conserved cellular proteins.

Protocol: Complementation Assay for Metabolic Function

• Objective: To determine if a resurrected ancestral protein can replace the function of a missing modern protein in a yeast knockout strain.
• Methodology:
  • Strain Preparation: Use a Saccharomyces cerevisiae knockout strain where the gene encoding the modern ortholog has been deleted, rendering the strain unable to grow under selective conditions (e.g., lacking a specific nutrient).
  • Transformation: Introduce a plasmid expressing the resurrected ancestral protein into the knockout strain. Include controls: empty vector (negative control) and plasmid expressing the modern protein (positive control).
  • Phenotypic Analysis: Plate transformed yeast cells on selective and non-selective media. Assess complementation of function by measuring growth rates, colony size, or survival after 48-72 hours of incubation at 30°C [53].
• Data Interpretation: Restoration of growth under selective conditions indicates the ancestral protein performs the essential biochemical function of the modern protein. This method is particularly powerful for studying the evolution of enzymatic activities in a cellular context.

Cell-Specific Expression and Phenotypic Analysis in Drosophila

The fruit fly's genetic toolbox allows for precise spatial and temporal control of gene expression, ideal for testing the functional capacity of ancestral proteins in specific tissues.

Protocol: Tissue-Specific Expression Using the GAL4/UAS System

• Objective: To express an ancestral protein in a specific tissue and assess its ability to rescue a mutant phenotype or induce a measurable response.
• Methodology:
  • Line Generation: Clone the cDNA of the ancestral protein into a UAS (Upstream Activating Sequence) vector. Integrate this construct into the Drosophila genome to create a transgenic line [53].
  • Crossing: Cross the UAS-ancestral protein line with various GAL4 driver lines that express the transcriptional activator GAL4 in specific tissues (e.g., neurons, muscles, eyes).
  • Phenotypic Scoring: In the F1 progeny, the ancestral protein will be expressed in the GAL4-defined pattern. Analyze relevant phenotypes:
    • Rescue Assays: If expressing in a mutant background, score for correction of morphological, behavioral, or viability defects.
    • Overexpression Assays: In a wild-type background, score for dominant phenotypes, which can reveal latent functions or toxic effects [56] [57].
• Data Interpretation: Successful rescue of a mutant phenotype suggests functional conservation. Tissue-specific effects provide insight into whether the ancestral protein can integrate correctly into complex signaling pathways.

Real-Time Functional Imaging in Zebrafish

The optical clarity of zebrafish embryos makes them ideal for visualizing the effects of ancestral proteins on vertebrate development and cellular processes in real time.

Protocol: Live Imaging of Developmental Processes

• Objective: To visualize the impact of ancestral protein expression on vertebrate embryonic development and organogenesis.
• Methodology:
  • Embryo Microinjection: At the one-cell stage, inject zebrafish embryos with mRNA encoding the ancestral protein. Often, the mRNA is co-injected with a fluorescent tracer (e.g., GFP mRNA) to identify successfully injected embryos [57] [53].
  • Live-Cell Imaging: Raise injected embryos at 28.5°C. Between 24 and 72 hours post-fertilization, anesthetize embryos and mount them in low-melting-point agarose for imaging.
  • Phenotypic Analysis: Use time-lapse confocal microscopy to track developmental processes such as:
    • Cell migration (e.g., neural crest cells)
    • Organ formation (e.g., heart, pancreas)
    • Angiogenesis (if the protein is a suspected growth factor/receptor) [57]
  • Fixation and Staining: For higher-resolution analysis, fix embryos at desired time points and perform whole-mount immunohistochemistry or in situ hybridization to visualize specific cell types or structures.
• Data Interpretation: Compare the development of injected embryos to uninjected controls. Defects in specific developmental trajectories can reveal the ancestral protein's role in regulating key vertebrate processes.

Decision Workflow and Experimental Design

The following diagram illustrates the logical process for selecting an appropriate model organism based on the research question, with a focus on validating ancestral protein function.

Addressing Statistical Uncertainty in Ancestral Reconstruction

A critical consideration in ancestral protein studies is the statistical uncertainty inherent in phylogenetic reconstruction. The Maximum Likelihood (ML) sequence is a point estimate, but it often contains ambiguously inferred sites [15]. Functional conclusions must be robust to this uncertainty. The following diagram outlines experimental strategies to address this challenge.

Experimental studies have shown that while qualitative conclusions about ancestral protein function (e.g., enzyme class, receptor specificity) are generally robust to statistical uncertainty, quantitative biochemical parameters (e.g., thermostability, catalytic efficiency) may vary among plausible sequence variants [58] [15]. Therefore, characterizing multiple plausible reconstructions in your chosen model organism provides a more credible foundation for evolutionary inferences.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Ancestral Protein Validation

Reagent / Tool	Function	Example Organisms
GAL4/UAS System	Binary expression system for precise spatiotemporal control of gene expression [53]	Drosophila melanogaster
CRISPR/Cas9 Systems	Genome editing for creating knockout backgrounds or inserting ancestral sequences [57]	Mouse, Zebrafish, Drosophila, C. elegans
RNAi Feeding Libraries	Knockdown gene expression by feeding bacteria expressing double-stranded RNA [56] [53]	C. elegans
Fluorescent Protein Tags (e.g., GFP, RFP)	Visualize protein localization, expression patterns, and cell fate in live organisms [57] [53]	All (especially Zebrafish, C. elegans)
Morpholinos	Transient knockdown of gene expression by blocking mRNA translation or splicing [55]	Zebrafish
UAS-cDNA Vectors	Plasmid vectors for generating transgenic lines expressing your gene of interest under UAS control [53]	Drosophila melanogaster
AC708	AC708, MF:C21H26O2	Chemical Reagent
GSK2188931B	GSK2188931B, MF:C19H22BrF3N6O2, MW:503.32	Chemical Reagent

The choice of a model organism for validating ancestral protein functions is a strategic decision that balances experimental practicality with biological relevance. For initial high-throughput screening of fundamental biochemical activities, yeast provides an unmatched combination of speed and genetic tractability. When studying the evolution of proteins involved in neurobiology or basic multicellular processes, C. elegans and Drosophila offer powerful genetic tools within a complex but manageable in vivo context. For proteins where vertebrate-specific biology is essential—such as those involved in complex organ development or human disease pathways—zebrafish represents an optimal balance of vertebrate relevance and experimental accessibility. The mouse remains indispensable for the final validation of findings in a mammalian system, particularly when the results have direct therapeutic implications.

Ultimately, a tiered approach that leverages the unique strengths of multiple model systems often provides the most compelling evidence for ancestral protein function, while carefully accounting for the statistical uncertainties inherent in phylogenetic reconstruction. This multi-faceted strategy ensures that conclusions about deep evolutionary history are both biochemically sound and biologically meaningful.

The validation of ancestral protein function in vivo represents a significant challenge in evolutionary biology and functional genomics. Success hinges on the researcher's choice of molecular tools to detect and quantify protein interactions and functions within the complex cellular environment. This guide provides an objective comparison of four cornerstone technologies for detecting protein-protein interactions (PPIs) in living cells: Split-Protein Systems (using luciferase and GFP), Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET), and the Yeast-Two-Hybrid (Y2H) system. We evaluate their performance based on critical parameters such as sensitivity, temporal resolution, and suitability for high-throughput screening, providing a framework for selecting the optimal method for validating resurrected ancestral proteins.

Core Technology Comparison

The following table provides a quantitative and qualitative comparison of the four primary technologies discussed in this guide, summarizing their key characteristics, advantages, and limitations to help inform your experimental design.

Table 1: Comparison of Key In Vivo Protein-Protein Interaction Detection Methods

Technology	Key Output Signal	Spatial Resolution	Temporal Resolution	Best for Ancestral Protein Validation Because...	Key Limitations
Split-Luciferase [59] [60]	Luminescence (light emission)	Moderate	High (Reversible) [60]	Enables real-time kinetic studies of transient ancestral complex formation.	Requires substrate addition; no inherent subcellular localization.
Split-GFP [61] [62]	Fluorescence (light emission)	High (can define subcellular location)	Low (Often irreversible) [60]	Visualizes subcellular localization of ancestral proteins in live cells.	High background from spontaneous reconstitution is a key challenge [63].
FRET/BRET [59] [60] [64]	Fluorescence/ Luminescence (energy transfer)	Very High (<10 nm) [60]	High (Reversible)	Probes very close-range interactions, critical for confirming direct binding.	Technically challenging; requires specialized equipment/filter sets [60].
Yeast-Two-Hybrid (Y2H) [59] [65]	Cell growth/Color (reporter gene)	Low (Nucleus) [65]	Low (Indirect)	Excellent for high-throughput screening of unknown ancestral protein partners.	High false-positive/negative rates; limited to nuclear proteins [65].

Detailed Methodologies & Experimental Protocols

Split-Reporter Systems: Luciferase and GFP

Split-protein systems are founded on the principle that a protein (e.g., an enzyme or fluorescent protein) can be split into two fragments that are individually inactive but can reconstitute into a functional unit when brought together by a specific biomolecular interaction [59].

Split-Luciferase Complementation Assay

This assay is ideal for dynamically tracking PPIs. The luciferase enzyme is split into two fragments, each fused to a protein of interest. Interaction brings the fragments together, reconstituting enzymatic activity, which is detected upon addition of a luciferin substrate via light emission [60].

• Key Experimental Protocol:
  • Construct Design: Fuse your ancestral "bait" protein to one fragment (e.g., N-terminal) of Firefly or NanoLuc luciferase and the "prey" protein to the complementary fragment. Newer variants like NanoLuc offer brighter signals [64].
  • Transfection/Transformation: Co-express the fusion constructs in your chosen host system (e.g., mammalian cells, yeast).
  • Signal Detection: Add the appropriate luciferin substrate (e.g., D-luciferin for Firefly, furimazine for NanoLuc). Quantify the resulting luminescence using a microplate reader or in vivo imaging system [60].
  • Controls: Include cells expressing only one fusion construct + the other empty fragment to measure background signal.

Split-Green Fluorescent Protein (GFP) Assay

Similar to split-luciferase, this assay uses split fragments of a fluorescent protein. Interaction-induced reconstitution produces a fluorescent signal without the need for a substrate, allowing subcellular localization of the PPI [61] [62].

• Key Experimental Protocol:
  • Construct Design: Fuse your proteins of interest to the split fragments of a fluorescent protein. The common splitting site is between beta-strands 10 and 11, where the C-terminal fragment (GFP11) is a short 16-amino-acid peptide [61].
  • Optimization: Use newly engineered variants like mNeonGreen2 or sfCherry2, which offer improved brightness and lower background compared to traditional split-GFP [61].
  • Expression & Imaging: Co-express constructs in cells. The reconstituted fluorescent signal can be visualized directly using fluorescence microscopy or quantified via flow cytometry [61].
  • Critical Consideration: The complementation is often irreversible, which can trap transient interactions and lead to false positives [60].

Förster Resonance Energy Transfer (FRET)

FRET is a physical phenomenon where energy is transferred non-radiatively from an excited donor fluorophore to a nearby acceptor fluorophore. Efficient FRET only occurs when the two fluorophores are in extremely close proximity (typically 1-10 nm), making it a powerful "molecular ruler" [60].

• Key Experimental Protocol:
  • Labeling: Tag your ancestral "bait" and "prey" proteins with a compatible donor-acceptor FRET pair (e.g., CFP-YFP, GFP-RFP).
  • Measurement (Sensitized Emission):
    • Excite the donor fluorophore and measure emission at both the donor and acceptor wavelengths.
    • The FRET efficiency is calculated from the increase in acceptor emission (sensitized emission) relative to the donor emission.
  • Advanced Modalities: For greater reliability, use Fluorescence Lifetime Imaging (FLIM-FRET), which measures the decrease in the donor's fluorescence lifetime in the presence of the acceptor, a parameter independent of fluorophore concentration [60].
  • Alternative: BRET: Bioluminescence Resonance Energy Transfer uses a luciferase (e.g., NanoLuc) as the donor, eliminating the need for external light excitation and reducing autofluorescence. The signal is triggered by adding a luciferin substrate [60] [64].

Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) System

A classic genetic system for detecting PPIs, Y2H is particularly useful for large-scale screening of unknown interaction partners [59] [65].

• Key Experimental Protocol:
  • Strain & Plasmid Preparation: Use a specialized yeast strain with integrated reporter genes (e.g., HIS3, ADE2, lacZ).
  • Hybrid Construction: Fuse your ancestral "bait" protein to the DNA-Binding Domain (DBD) of a transcription factor (e.g., GAL4). Fuse a library of potential "prey" proteins to the Transcription Activation (TA) domain.
  • Transformation & Selection: Co-transform the bait and prey plasmids into the yeast strain. Plate the yeast on media lacking specific nutrients (e.g., -His, -Ade). Only yeast cells where the bait and prey interact will activate the reporter genes, allowing growth on the selective medium.
  • Validation: Confirm positive interactions with secondary reporters like lacZ (beta-galactosidase), which produces a blue color in the presence of a substrate [65].

Performance Data & Optimization Insights

Table 2: Quantitative Performance of Selected Fluorescent Reporters in S. cerevisiae

Reporter Protein	Excitation (nm)	Emission (nm)	Brightness (Relative to EGFP)	Codon-Optimized for Yeast?	Mean Fluorescence Intensity (MFI) in Yeast [66]
EGFP (mammalian codons)	488	507	1.0 (Baseline)	No	~1,490
yEGFP (yeast codons)	488	507	~1.0	Yes	~33,351
mUkG1 (native codons)	500	520	High [66]	No	~14,194
ymUkG1 (yeast codons)	500	520	Very High [66]	Yes	~47,088
mNeonGreen	506	517	~2x EGFP [61]	Yes (Tested)	<20,000

• Key Insight: Codon optimization is critical for achieving high expression and fluorescence in heterologous systems like yeast. Non-optimized mammalian EGFP performs poorly, while its yeast-optimized version shows a 22-fold increase in signal [66]. Notably, bright proteins like mNeonGreen may underperform if not properly optimized for the host [66].

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Protein Interaction Studies

Reagent / Tool	Function / Description	Example Application
Split-NanoLuc Luciferase [64]	A small (19kDa), bright luciferase that can be split into fragments for complementation.	Real-time, high-sensitivity PPI detection with furimazine substrate.
sfCherry2 1-10/11 [61]	An engineered split red fluorescent protein with ~10x improved brightness over its predecessor.	Multiplexed, dual-color imaging with other split FPs (e.g., GFP).
mNeonGreen2 1-10/11 [61]	An engineered split yellow-green fluorescent protein with extremely low background fluorescence from the 1-10 fragment.	Sensitive labeling of endogenous proteins via CRISPR knock-in of the 11 tag.
Yeast Two-Hybrid System (with HIS3 Reporter) [65]	A genetic system where PPIs drive survival on histidine-deficient media.	High-throughput library screening for novel interaction partners.
SPORT Strategy [63]	A computational design strategy (Split Protein Optimization by Reconstitution Tuning) to reduce spontaneous reassembly of split fragments.	Optimizing any split-protein system (e.g., split-TEV protease) to minimize false-positive background.

Signaling Pathways & Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the core mechanisms and an integrated experimental workflow for validating ancestral protein interactions.

Diagram 1: Core Mechanisms of Key PPI Detection Technologies

Diagram 2: Workflow for Validating Ancestral Protein Function

Selecting the right tool from the molecular toolkit is paramount for successfully validating the function of ancestral proteins in a living cellular context. There is no single "best" technology; the choice is dictated by the specific biological question. For dynamic, real-time interaction kinetics, split-luciferase and FRET/BRET are superior. For visualizing the subcellular location of interactions, split-fluorescent proteins like sfCherry2 and mNeonGreen2 are ideal. For discovering novel interaction partners in an unbiased manner, the Yeast-Two-Hybrid system remains a powerful, high-throughput workhorse. By leveraging the quantitative data and protocols outlined in this guide, researchers can make informed decisions, optimize their experiments, and robustly illuminate the functions of proteins from the deep past.

Protein kinases represent a large family of enzymes that regulate nearly all aspects of cellular biology through the phosphorylation of target proteins. The human kinome consists of over 500 protein kinases, which are classified into groups such as tyrosine kinases (TKs), serine/threonine kinases (STKs), and dual-specificity kinases based on their substrate specificity and sequence similarity [67] [68]. For researchers investigating deep evolutionary relationships among kinases, traditional methods relying solely on genetic sequences face significant limitations due to sequence saturation - a phenomenon where sequences change so drastically over long periods that signals of shared ancestry are erased [69]. This is particularly problematic for kinases, as their ATP-binding pockets are highly conserved, making it difficult to resolve ancient evolutionary divisions using sequence data alone [67] [70]. This case study examines how integrating protein structural data can overcome these limitations, providing fresh insights into kinase evolution with important implications for understanding disease mechanisms and drug development.

Methodology: Combining Structural and Sequence Data

Structural Phylogenetics Approach

The innovative method examined in this case study involves combining three-dimensional protein structure data with traditional genomic sequences to enhance the accuracy of evolutionary trees. Researchers hypothesized that intra-molecular distances (IMDs) - the distances between pairs of amino acids within a protein - could reveal how much protein structures diverge over time [69]. The methodology follows these key steps:

• Collection of structural data: Researchers analyze a vast collection of kinases with known structures from various species
• IMD calculation: Distances between amino acid pairs within each kinase structure are calculated
• Tree construction: Phylogenetic trees are built based on structural divergence metrics
• Data integration: Structural trees are combined with sequence-based phylogenetic trees

As Dr. Leila Mansouri, study co-author from the Centre for Genomic Regulation, explained: "It is akin to having two witnesses describe an event from different angles. Each provides unique details, but together they give a fuller, more accurate account" [69].

Experimental Validation through Ancestral Reconstruction

To validate findings from structural phylogenetics, researchers employ ancestral protein reconstruction (APR) - a technique that generates hypothetical protein sequences representing reasonable approximations of ancient proteins [4]. The generalized protocol involves:

• Phylogenetic inference: Inferring kinase family phylogenies from multiple sequence alignments
• Ancestral sequence reconstruction: Calculating probable ancestral sequences at different phylogenetic nodes
• Structural homology modeling: Generating 3D structures of reconstructed ancestral kinases
• Functional characterization: Testing biochemical functions of reconstructed kinases [71]

This approach allows researchers to explicitly test hypotheses about the evolution of molecular function by meticulously tracing how historical changes in kinase sequences impacted their 3D structure and biological activity [71].

Comparative Analysis: Structural vs. Traditional Methods

Performance Comparison Across Methodologies

Table 1: Comparison of kinase evolutionary analysis methods

Method	Fundamental Data	Time Depth	Saturation Resistance	Key Applications
Sequence-Based Phylogenetics	DNA/protein sequences	Moderate	Low	Recent evolutionary relationships, high-resolution divergence timing
Structural Phylogenetics	Protein 3D structures, IMDs	Deep	High	Ancient relationships, functional conservation analysis
Combined Structural+Sequence	Sequences + 3D structures	Very Deep	Very High	Comprehensive evolutionary history, drug target identification
Ancestral Reconstruction	Inferred ancient sequences	Customizable	Moderate	Functional evolution, mechanistic studies

Quantitative Assessment of Methodological Advantages

Table 2: Quantitative performance metrics for kinase evolutionary analysis

Performance Metric	Sequence-Only Methods	Structure-Only Methods	Combined Approach
Signal retention over 1 billion years	<20%	>70%	>85%
Branch support values	Moderate (60-80%)	High (70-90%)	Very high (80-95%)
Resolution of ancient gene duplications	Limited	Substantially improved	Excellent
Accuracy in functional prediction	45-65%	70-85%	80-95%
Computational intensity	Low to moderate	Moderate	High

The structural approach proves particularly valuable for kinase research because the intricate shapes that proteins fold into - critical to their cellular functions - are more conserved over evolutionary time than the sequences themselves [69]. For example, analyses of DYRK-family kinases across diverse eukaryotic supergroups revealed that intramolecular activation mechanisms are evolutionarily ancient, with class 2 DYRKs present in the primordial eukaryote [72].

Experimental Protocols and Workflows

Core Protocol: Structural Phylogenetics of Kinases

Objective: To resolve deep evolutionary relationships in kinases by integrating protein structural data with sequence information.

Step-by-Step Methodology:

• Dataset Curation

  • Collect kinase sequences from public databases (NCBI, UniProt)
  • Retrieve experimental kinase structures from PDB or predicted structures from AlphaFold 2
  • Include diverse representative species covering the taxonomic range of interest

• Structural Data Processing

  • Calculate intra-molecular distances (IMDs) between all amino acid pairs within each kinase structure
  • Generate distance matrices representing structural dissimilarity
  • Perform structural alignments of kinase domains focusing on conserved regions

• Phylogenetic Analysis

  • Construct initial trees using traditional sequence-based methods (maximum likelihood, Bayesian inference)
  • Build structural trees based on IMD dissimilarity matrices
  • Combine datasets using weighted approaches that account for differential evolutionary rates

• Statistical Validation

  • Assess branch support through bootstrapping or posterior probabilities
  • Compare topological congruence between sequence-only and structure-informed trees
  • Test for saturation effects in each dataset

Key Technical Considerations: The method remains effective even when applied to kinases with predicted structures that have not been experimentally verified, significantly expanding the potential dataset given that of 250 million known protein sequences, only 210,000 have experimentally determined structures [69].

Experimental Workflow Visualization

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key research reagents and computational tools for kinase evolutionary studies

Reagent/Tool	Type	Function in Analysis	Example Sources/Platforms
AlphaFold 2	Computational	Predicts 3D protein structures from sequences	DeepMind, EBI Databases
KinomeFEATURE	Database	Kinase binding site similarity search	Stanford SimTK website
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction	Computational Method	Infers ancient protein sequences	FastML, BAli-Phy
Biochemical Activity Assays	Experimental	Measures kinase function (ATP hydrolysis, phosphorylation)	Z'-LYTE, Adapta
Competitive Binding Assays	Experimental	Profiles inhibitor specificity across kinase panels	LanthaScreen
Multiple Sequence Alignment	Computational	Aligns homologous kinase sequences	MAFFT, Clustal Omega, MUSCLE
Phylogenetic Software	Computational	Builds evolutionary trees	RAxML, MrBayes, PhyML
RG7775	RG7775, MF:C12H12N4O	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
HaXS8	HaXS8, MF:C35H43ClF4N6O8, MW:787.2	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Applications in Kinase Research and Drug Development

Resolving Kinase Evolutionary History

The combination of structural and sequence data has revealed previously unresolved relationships in kinase evolution. For example, the evolutionary analysis of Dicer helicase domains across animals demonstrated an early gene duplication event where an ancestral animal Dicer split into two major clades [4]. Similarly, studies of DYRK-family kinases across diverse eukaryotic supergroups revealed that class 2 DYRKs were present in the primordial eukaryote, suggesting this subgroup may be the oldest, founding member of the DYRK family [72].

Structural phylogenetics has proven particularly valuable for understanding the evolution of functional diversity in kinases. For instance, ancestral reconstruction of Dicer's helicase domain traced the evolutionary trajectory of ATP hydrolysis capability, revealing that ancient Dicer possessed ATPase function that was lost in the vertebrate ancestor due to diminished dsRNA affinity [4]. This functional evolution coincided with the emergence of RIG-I-like receptors that may have assumed Dicer's antiviral role.

Informing Drug Discovery and Selectivity Profiling

Understanding deep evolutionary relationships in kinases has direct implications for drug development. The high structural conservation of kinase ATP-binding pockets presents both challenges and opportunities for inhibitor design [67] [70]. Kinase inhibitor selectivity remains a top priority for drug design and clinical safety assessment, as unintended off-target binding can cause adverse effects [70].

Computational approaches that leverage evolutionary and structural insights, such as the KinomeFEATURE database, enable researchers to profile kinase inhibitor selectivity by comparing protein microenvironments using diverse physiochemical descriptors [70]. These methods achieve >90% accuracy in predicting inhibitor off-target effects, significantly contributing to kinase drug development and safety assessment.

Furthermore, machine learning approaches can differentiate inhibitors of closely related kinases with single- or multi-target activity based on chemical structure [73]. This capability is particularly valuable for designing drugs with desired polypharmacology - where simultaneous inhibition of multiple kinase targets can improve therapeutic efficacy, especially in oncology [73].

Signaling Pathway and Evolutionary Relationships

Kinase Evolutionary Relationships and Functional Diversification

Integrating protein structural data with traditional sequence analysis represents a transformative approach for resolving deep evolutionary relationships in kinases. This methodology overcomes the critical limitation of sequence saturation that has long hampered studies of ancient evolutionary events. As initiatives like AlphaFold 2 continue to generate vast amounts of structural data and projects like the Earth BioGenome Project promise to produce billions more protein sequences, the potential for these combined approaches will only expand [69].

For kinase researchers and drug development professionals, these advances offer exciting opportunities to better understand functional evolution, identify novel therapeutic targets, and design more specific inhibitors. The ability to accurately reconstruct ancient kinase relationships and functions provides critical context for interpreting modern kinase biology and developing targeted therapies for cancer, inflammatory diseases, and other conditions where kinase dysfunction plays a central role.

Fructosamine-3-kinases (FN3Ks) represent a crucial family of repair enzymes that counteract non-enzymatic glycation, a fundamental process where reducing sugars spontaneously attach to free amino groups on proteins, forming potentially deleterious adducts known as fructosamines or Amadori products [74] [75] [76]. This glycation process is ubiquitous in homeothermic organisms and has been implicated in multiple chronic diseases, including diabetes, arthritis, and atherosclerosis [75]. FN3Ks function by phosphorylating the fructose-lysine moiety on glycated proteins, forming an unstable fructosamine-3-phosphate that spontaneously decomposes, thereby regenerating the unmodified protein and a free sugar derivative [74] [75]. This catalytic activity establishes FN3Ks as essential components of the cellular defense system against glycation-induced damage. The remarkable conservation of FN3Ks across the tree of life, from prokaryotes to humans, underscores their fundamental biological importance [76]. This case study explores the molecular basis of FN3K substrate specificity, situating the discussion within the broader challenge of validating the functions of ancestral proteins through experimental reconstruction.

Structural Basis of Human FN3K Substrate Recognition

Recent structural biology breakthroughs have illuminated the molecular mechanisms governing human FN3K (HsFN3K) substrate specificity. A series of crystal structures of HsFN3K, including the apo-state and complexes with nucleotide analogs and sugar substrate mimics, have revealed critical features for kinase activity and substrate recognition [75].

HsFN3K possesses a conserved structural fold comprising a large N-terminal domain and a small C-terminal domain, with the active site situated at their interface. This architecture creates a binding pocket that accommodates the fructose-lysine adduct. Structural analyses demonstrate that HsFN3K is specific for the 1-deoxy-1-amino fructose adduct but can tolerate a bulky group at the N1 position of a fructose-containing substrate, explaining its ability to process glycated proteins rather than just small molecules [75]. The dynamics of sugar substrate binding during the kinase catalytic cycle provide crucial mechanistic insights into how the enzyme positions its substrate for efficient phosphorylation at the O3' hydroxyl group [75].

Table 1: Key Structural Features Governing Human FN3K Substrate Specificity

Structural Element	Role in Substrate Specificity
Active Site Location	Situated at the interface between N-terminal and C-terminal domains [75]
Sugar Binding Pocket	Accommodates the 1-deoxy-1-amino fructose adduct (fructosamine) [75]
N1 Position Accommodation	Tolerates bulky groups at N1 position, enabling protein-bound fructoselysine recognition [75]
Redox-Sensitive Cysteine (C24)	Located in ATP-binding P-loop; confers redox sensitivity and disulfide-mediated oligomerization [76]
Dimeric Interface	Redox-dependent dimerization associated with ~60% higher kinase activity [75]

Comparative Analysis of FN3K Substrate Specificity Across Orthologs

The FN3K family exhibits both conserved and divergent specificity features across organisms. While lower eukaryotes and prokaryotes typically possess a single FN3K gene, most tetrapod genomes contain two paralogs: FN3K and FN3K-Related Protein (FN3KRP), resulting from independent gene duplication events in reptiles/birds and placental mammals [76]. This evolutionary history has led to functional divergence in substrate specificity.

Human FN3K demonstrates broad substrate capability, phosphorylating ketosamines resulting from glycation of both L- and D-orientation sugars. In contrast, FN3KRP orthologs exhibit narrower specificity, limited primarily to ketosamines derived from D-orientation sugars [76]. This divergence suggests subfunctionalization after gene duplication, with FN3KRP possibly specializing in a distinct subset of glycated substrates. The subcellular localization of these paralogs also differs: immunohistochemistry studies indicate that HsFN3K localizes to mitochondria, while HsFN3KRP resides predominantly in the nucleoplasm [76]. This compartmentalization likely reflects distinct biological roles and substrate populations for each paralog.

Table 2: Substrate Specificity Profile of Human FN3K and Related Enzymes

Enzyme	Sugar Orientation Specificity	Protein Substrate Tolerance	Cellular Localization	Notable Substrates
Human FN3K	Both L and D orientation sugars [76]	Broad (bulky N1 groups) [75]	Mitochondria [76]	NRF2 transcription factor [75]
Human FN3KRP	D-orientation sugars only [76]	Not fully characterized	Nucleoplasm [76]	Not fully characterized
Plant FN3K (AtFN3K)	Similar broad specificity [76]	Similar broad specificity [76]	Not specified	General protein repair [76]
Fungal Amadoriases	Not applicable (different mechanism)	Prefers long side chains [75]	Not specified	Oxidative deglycation [75]

Methodological Framework for Ancestral FN3K Reconstruction and Validation

Computational Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction

Elucidating ancestral FN3K functions requires robust phylogenetic inference methods. Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) involves phylogenetic inference of ancient protein sequences followed by gene synthesis, expression, and experimental characterization [15]. The maximum likelihood (ML) approach represents the current standard, calculating the posterior probability of each possible ancestral state at every sequence position given the phylogenetic tree and evolutionary model [15]. However, ML reconstructions inevitably contain ambiguously inferred sites, creating a "cloud" of plausible alternative sequences surrounding the most likely reconstruction [15]. This uncertainty must be addressed experimentally to validate functional inferences.

Bayesian inference (BI) methods provide an alternative approach that samples ancestral states from the posterior probability distribution rather than selecting only the most probable state at each position. Computational simulations comparing reconstruction methods have revealed that ML and maximum parsimony methods tend to systematically overestimate ancestral protein thermostability, while Bayesian sampling produces more unbiased estimates [58] [9]. This bias occurs because ML methods eliminate slightly detrimental variants that are less frequent, thereby skewing toward more stable sequences [9].

Experimental Validation of Reconstructed Sequences

Addressing uncertainty in ancestral reconstructions requires strategic experimental approaches. When sequence ambiguity exists, several validation strategies can be employed:

• Single-Residue Neighbors: Creating variants containing plausible alternate amino acids at individual ambiguously reconstructed sites and characterizing each separately [15].
• "Worst Plausible Case" (AltAll): Incorporating all plausible alternate states into a single protein sequence, providing a conservative test of functional robustness to sequence uncertainty [15].
• Bayesian Sampling: Constructing and characterizing multiple sequences sampled from the posterior probability distribution to assess the functional range of plausible ancestors [15] [9].

Research demonstrates that qualitative conclusions about ancestral protein functions typically remain robust to sequence uncertainty, even when numerous alternate amino acids are incorporated. However, quantitative biochemical parameters may vary among plausible sequences, emphasizing the importance of experimental robustness characterization when precise quantitative estimates are desired [15].

Experimental Assays for FN3K Activity and Specificity

Functional validation of reconstructed ancestral FN3Ks requires specific biochemical assays to measure deglycation activity:

• HPLC-Based Activity Assays: Established methods quantify FN3K and FN3K-RP activity in erythrocytes using substrates like N-α-hippuryl-N-ε-psicosyllysine, detecting product formation via high-performance liquid chromatography [77]. These assays reveal significant interindividual variability in FN3K activity (2.8-12.5 mU/g Hb) compared to FN3K-RP (60-135 mU/g Hb) [77].

• UPLC-MS Deglycation Validation: Ultra-performance liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (UPLC-MS) provides direct evidence of FN3K-mediated deglycation. This method can detect specific mass adducts corresponding to Schiff bases ([M + 132]A) and Amadori products ([M + 132]B), along with the phosphorylated intermediate (mass shift of +212) [75]. This approach has confirmed ATP-dependent deglycation of glycated NRF2 peptides by FN3K [75].

• Small Molecule Kinase Assays: Using synthetic substrates like 1-deoxy-1-morpholino-D-fructose (DMF), which mimics a glycated tail attached to lysine residues, provides a sensitive system for quantifying FN3K phosphorylation activity [75]. These assays have demonstrated that dimeric FN3K exhibits approximately 60% higher kinase activity than monomeric species [75].

The FN3K-NRF2 Signaling Axis: A Pathway Case Study

Recent research has uncovered a critical link between FN3K and the NRF2 transcription factor, revealing how substrate specificity connects to broader cellular physiology. NRF2 is a master regulator of antioxidant response, controlling expression of over 200 genes involved in redox balance, metabolic reprogramming, and biomolecule synthesis [75]. Glycation of specific NRF2 residues (K462, K472, K487, R499, R569, R587) impairs both its stability and transactivation function [75].

FN3K reverses these effects by deglycating NRF2, thereby restoring its transcriptional activity. This regulatory axis has particular significance in cancer biology, where FN3K functions as a potent NRF2 activator in malignancies [75]. Downregulation of FN3K in liver (HepG2, Huh1) and lung (H3255, H460) cancer cell lines impairs NRF2 function by reducing protein stability and disrupting dimerization with small musculoaponeurotic fibrosarcoma (sMAF) proteins [75]. Furthermore, FN3K knockdown resensitizes non-small cell lung cancer cell lines to erlotinib treatment, highlighting the therapeutic potential of targeting this enzyme [75].

Integrative Multi-Omics Reveals FN3K's Metabolic Connections

Beyond specific protein substrates, systems biology approaches place FN3K within broader metabolic context. Multi-omics analyses integrating transcriptomics, metabolomics, and interactomics from FN3K knockout HepG2 cell lines reveal extensive connections to core metabolic pathways [76].

Transcriptomic profiling identifies 408 differentially expressed genes in FN3K knockout cells, with upregulation of metallothioneins (MT1E, MT1G), cytochrome P450 family members (CYP24A1, CYP17A1), and cholesterol synthesis genes (PCSK9, MSMO1, MVD, MVK, HMGCS1) [76]. Pathway enrichment analysis demonstrates FN3K's involvement in oxidative stress response, lipid biosynthesis (cholesterol and fatty acids), and co-factor metabolism [76]. Interactome studies further identify specific interactions between FN3K and metabolic enzymes including Fatty acid synthase (FASN) and Lactate dehydrogenase A (LDHA) in the cytoplasm [76].

Perhaps most notably, integrative network analysis reveals enrichment of NAD-binding proteins, and experimental studies confirm specific, metal-dependent binding of HsFN3K to NAD compounds [76]. This suggests a potential link between FN3K activity and NAD-mediated energy metabolism and redox balance, particularly significant given HsFN3K's mitochondrial localization [76].

Research Reagent Solutions for FN3K Investigation

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for FN3K Functional Characterization

Reagent / Method	Specific Application	Key Utility in FN3K Research
Recombinant FN3K Proteins	In vitro kinase assays	Purified from E. coli or insect cells; dimeric species shows ~60% higher activity [75]
Glycated Peptide Substrates	Substrate specificity profiling	e.g., NRF2-derived peptides (H-LALIKDIQ); ribose-glycated for higher reactivity [75]
1-deoxy-1-morpholino-D-fructose (DMF)	Small molecule kinase assays	Mimics glycated protein tails; standardized activity quantification [75]
UPLC-MS Methodology	Detection of deglycation products	Identifies Schiff bases, Amadori products, and phosphorylated intermediates [75]
HPLC-Based Activity Assay	Enzyme activity measurement	Quantifies FN3K/FN3K-RP activity in erythrocytes with specific substrates [77]
FN3K Knockout Cell Lines	Functional validation in cellular context	CRISPR KO HepG2 cells reveal pathway connections via multi-omics [76]
Crystallization Constructs	Structural determination	Internal loop truncated HsFN3K (HsFN3K∆) enables crystal structure solution [75]

This case study demonstrates that FN3K substrate specificity is governed by conserved structural features enabling recognition of fructosamine adducts on diverse protein substrates. The integration of ancestral sequence reconstruction with robust experimental validation provides a powerful framework for elucidating the evolutionary trajectory of this essential repair enzyme. Future research directions should include comprehensive analysis of ancestral FN3K substrate specificity using the experimental approaches outlined here, structural characterization of FN3K complexes with physiologically relevant protein substrates to refine specificity determinants, and therapeutic exploration of the FN3K-NRF2 axis in cancer and metabolic diseases where protein glycation contributes to pathology. The methodological framework presented for validating ancestral protein functions establishes a rigorous standard for bridging computational predictions with experimental evidence in evolutionary biochemistry.

Navigating Experimental Pitfalls: From Expression Issues to Data Interpretation

The resurrection of ancient proteins via Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) provides a powerful window into molecular evolution and a promising source of novel biocatalysts and therapeutics. However, a central paradox defines this field: while some studies suggest ancestral proteins were inherently more stable, their modern descendants have often evolved under different selective pressures, making the expressed ancestral sequences prone to low solubility and poor stability in contemporary experimental systems. Successfully expressing functional ancient proteins requires a sophisticated, multi-pronged strategy that integrates computational design, optimized expression protocols, and rigorous functional validation. This guide objectively compares the leading strategies and their supporting experimental data, providing a framework for researchers to navigate these challenges.

Computational Design and Stabilization Strategies

Computational methods provide the first line of defense against instability, allowing researchers to predict and rectify problematic sequences before moving to costly wet-lab experiments.

Table 1: Comparison of Computational Tools for Protein Stabilization

Method/Tool	Primary Approach	Reported Performance/Data	Key Advantages	Key Limitations
Rosetta Design Suite [78]	Physics-based energy function minimization for de novo design and repacking.	Designed proteins with Tm > 95°C; ΔG of folding >60 kcal/mol for some helical bundles [78].	Can design extremely stable, idealized folds not seen in nature.	Success is not guaranteed; failures are difficult to diagnose; requires significant expertise.
Consensus Design [78]	Derives stabilizing mutations from evolutionary related sequences, often improved with co-variation filters.	High likelihood of stabilizing without sacrificing function; often used to rescue unstable computational designs [78].	High success rate; relatively simple to implement.	Relies on the availability of a large and diverse multiple sequence alignment.
Co-evolutionary Potts Models [79] [10]	Infers interaction networks between residues from sequence alignments to account for epistasis.	Outperforms state-of-the-art methods in ASR accuracy by modeling epistasis [10].	Captures context-dependence of mutations, critical for accurate resurrection.	Computationally intensive; requires large alignments.
FoldX/Eris [78]	Fast, empirical force field for predicting ΔΔG of mutations.	Correlation ~0.4-0.6 with experimental ΔΔG; error ~1±1 kcal/mol [78].	Fast; user-friendly; good for rapid screening of point mutations.	Accuracy is limited compared to more sophisticated methods.

Experimental Protocol: Computational Stabilization Pipeline

• Initial Reconstruction: Infer ancestral sequences using a model of sequence evolution (e.g., in PAML) and a phylogenetic tree [79].
• Stability Prediction: Input the reconstructed sequence into tools like FoldX or Rosetta to calculate stability metrics and identify potential destabilizing residues.
• Generate Stabilized Variants:
  • Consensus Approach: Create a consensus sequence from a deep multiple sequence alignment of extant homologs [78].
  • Rosetta Design: Use the "FixBB" or "Relax" protocols to repack the protein core and optimize side-chain rotamers for improved hydrophobic burial and packing [78].
• In Silico Filtering: Rank the designed variants based on calculated energy scores and select the top candidates for experimental testing.

Experimental Expression and Solubility Optimization

Even computationally optimized sequences can express poorly. The choice of expression system and purification strategy is critical.

Table 2: Comparison of Expression Systems for Ancient Proteins

Expression System	Typical Solubility/Yield Range	Ideal Use Case	Key Considerations
E. coli	Highly variable (0-50 mg/L)	High-throughput screening; proteins not requiring complex eukaryotic post-translational modifications (PTMs).	Inclusion bodies are common; codon optimization is essential; can add solubility tags (e.g., MBP, GST).
Insect Cells (Baculovirus)	Moderate to High (1-100 mg/L)	Large, complex proteins requiring specific PTMs; membrane-associated proteins.	Slower and more expensive than E. coli; proper folding is more likely.
Mammalian Cells	Low to Moderate (0.1-10 mg/L)	Proteins requiring highly specific mammalian PTMs (e.g., complex glycosylation) for functional validation.	Lowest throughput and highest cost; essential for certain functional assays.

Experimental Protocol: Solubility Screening in E. coli

• Codon Optimization and Cloning: Gene sequences are codon-optimized for E. coli and cloned into a standard expression vector (e.g., pET series) containing an N- or C-terminal solubility tag (e.g., MBP, GST, SUMO).
• Small-Scale Expression Test: Transform plasmids into a suitable E. coli strain (e.g., BL21(DE3)). Induce expression with IPTG at a lower temperature (18-25°C) to slow down protein production and favor proper folding.
• Solubility Analysis:
  • Lyse cells and separate the soluble (supernatant) and insoluble (pellet) fractions by centrifugation.
  • Analyze both fractions by SDS-PAGE to determine the distribution of the expressed protein.
• Purification and Tag Cleavage:
  • Purify the soluble fraction using affinity chromatography (e.g., Ni-NTA for His-tags, amylose resin for MBP-tags).
  • Cleave the solubility tag with a specific protease (e.g., TEV, HRV 3C) and perform a second chromatography step to remove the tag.
  • Assess the final purified, tag-free protein by size-exclusion chromatography (SEC) for monodispersity and oligomeric state.

Experimental workflow for expressing and solubilizing an ancient protein in E. coli, with critical checkpoints for success and failure.

Functional Validation in vivo and in vitro

Validating that a resurrected protein is not just stable but also functional is the final, critical step, especially within the context of a living system.

Experimental Protocol: Validating ATP Hydrolysis and dsRNA Translocation

This protocol is based on research that resurrected ancient Dicer helicases [80].

• Protein Preparation: Resurrect and express the ancestral helicase domain (e.g., of Dicer) using the strategies above.
• ATPase Activity Assay:
  • Incubate the purified protein with ATP and a radiolabeled or colorimetric reporting system.
  • Measure the rate of ATP hydrolysis (Pi release) in the presence and absence of its substrate (dsRNA).
  • A functional helicase will show dsRNA-stimulated ATPase activity. Michaelis-Menten kinetics (K_m, k_cat) can be calculated and compared to modern analogs.
• Translocation Assay (e.g., FRET-based):
  • Design a dsRNA oligonucleotide with a donor fluorophore on one end and an acceptor on the other.
  • Upon helicase translocation and unwinding, the fluorophores separate, leading to a decrease in FRET efficiency.
  • Monitor the FRET signal in real-time upon adding the helicase and ATP. The rate of FRET decay reports on translocation velocity and processivity.
• In Vivo Complementation:
  • In a modern organism (e.g., C. elegans), create a knockout or knockdown of the modern helicase gene.
  • Introduce the resurrected ancestral helicase gene and test for rescue of the native phenotype (e.g., antiviral defense capability) [80].

A multi-pronged approach for validating the function of a resurrected ancient protein, combining quantitative biochemical and biophysical assays with ultimate validation in a living system.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagents for Ancient Protein Research

Reagent / Material	Function / Application	Example Use Case
Codon-Optimized Genes	Maximizes translation efficiency in the heterologous host, a critical first step for yield.	Ordered from commercial vendors for expression in E. coli, insect, or mammalian cells.
Solubility-Tag Vectors	Enhances solubility of the target protein; simplifies purification.	pMAL (MBP tag), pGEX (GST tag), Champion pET SUMO.
Affinity Chromatography Resins	Enables one-step purification of tagged proteins.	Ni-NTA (His-tag), Amylose Resin (MBP-tag), Glutathione Sepharose (GST-tag).
Proteases for Tag Cleavage	Removes the solubility tag to study the native protein.	TEV Protease, HRV 3C Protease, Thrombin.
Size-Exclusion Chromatography (SEC)	Assesses protein monodispersity, oligomeric state, and final purity.	HiLoad Superdex columns for analytical or preparative SEC.
Stable Isotope-Labeled Amino Acids	Allows for quantitative mass spectrometry-based proteomics (SILAC).	Critical for comparative analyses of protein interactions and modifications [81].
Isobaric Tags (TMT, iTRAQ)	Enables multiplexed quantitative proteomics from complex samples.	Comparing protein abundance across multiple conditions (e.g., in vivo vs in vitro) [81].
AZD-4769	AZD-4769	Chemical Reagent
Uperin-2.1	Uperin-2.1 Peptide|Amyloidogenic Antimicrobial Research

Successfully expressing functional ancient proteins is a non-trivial endeavor that hinges on strategically combining computational and experimental methods. The data shows that while computational tools like Rosetta can achieve remarkable stability, their success is not universal, and statistical methods like consensus design offer a robust alternative. The choice of expression system and the use of solubility tags are practical necessities to overcome low yields. Ultimately, rigorous validation using a combination of in vitro biochemical assays and in vivo functional tests is indispensable to confirm that the resurrected protein not only exists in a stable form but also performs its ancestral role. As methods for ancestral reconstruction continue to improve by better modeling epistasis [10], and as high-throughput stability measurements become more accessible [78], the challenge of obtaining soluble, stable, and functional ancient proteins will continue to diminish, opening new frontiers in evolutionary biochemistry and therapeutic design.

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) has become an indispensable tool for evolutionary biologists and protein engineers, enabling the resurrection and functional characterization of ancient proteins. However, the inherent uncertainties in phylogenetic inference and reconstruction algorithms pose significant challenges for validating these ancestral sequences, particularly in downstream in vivo applications. This guide systematically compares the performance of leading ASR methodologies, supported by experimental benchmarking data, to provide researchers with evidence-based protocols for quantifying confidence in their reconstructions. By addressing key sources of uncertainty—from phylogenetic topology to alignment artifacts—we establish a framework for generating biologically relevant ancestral proteins that can be reliably deployed in functional validation studies and drug development pipelines.

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) represents a powerful phylogenetic approach for inferring ancient gene sequences, enabling researchers to formulate and test hypotheses about the evolutionary history of protein function, structure, and mechanism [82]. The standard ASR pipeline involves: (1) selecting extant sequences, (2) building a multiple sequence alignment (MSA), (3) computing a phylogenetic tree, and (4) reconstructing ancestral sequences [83]. However, each stage introduces potential uncertainties that can propagate through to the final reconstructed sequence, complicating downstream functional validation.

For researchers focused on validating ancestral protein functions in in vivo systems, these uncertainties present particular challenges. In vivo validation of protein function—using gene invalidation, RNA interference, or protein functional knockout models—requires substantial investments of time and resources [84]. Confidence in the initial ancestral sequence reconstruction is therefore paramount, as functional characterization of incorrect sequences can lead to misleading biological interpretations. This guide compares contemporary approaches for quantifying reconstruction confidence, providing experimental benchmarks and practical methodologies to ensure biological relevance in ancestral protein studies.

Quantitative Comparison of ASR Method Performance

Different ASR methodologies vary significantly in their accuracy under various evolutionary conditions. The table below summarizes key performance metrics from experimental benchmarking studies:

Table 1: Performance comparison of ASR methodologies under experimental benchmarking

Method	Overall Sequence Accuracy	Phenotypic Accuracy	Strengths	Limitations
Bayesian with Rate Variation (PAMLГ, FastMLГ)	98.17% [24]	Significantly outperforms MP (p<0.01) [24]	Best performance for both genotype and phenotype reconstruction [24]	Computationally intensive
Bayesian without Rate Variation (PAML)	~98% [24]	Moderate phenotypic error [24]	Balance of accuracy and computational efficiency	Lower phenotypic accuracy than gamma models
Maximum Parsimony (MP)	97.88% [24]	Highest phenotypic error [24]	Computational simplicity; intuitive approach	Poor performance with homoplasy; higher phenotypic inaccuracy
Species-Tree-Aware Bayesian (PHYLO_Г)	97.9% [24]	Variable performance across phenotypes [24]	Accounts for gene duplication/loss events	Computationally demanding; inconsistent phenotypic accuracy

Table 2: Impact of multiple sequence alignment methods on ASR accuracy

Alignment Method	Alignment Approach	ASR Performance	Best Use Cases
PRANK	Phylogeny-aware	Best overall performance [83]	Data with indels; evolutionary homology
MAFFT E-INS-i	Consistency-aware	Excellent performance [83]	Sequences with multiple domains
MAFFT L-INS-i	Consistency-aware	Strong performance [83]	Sequences with one alignable domain
Clustal Omega	Progressive	Moderate performance [83]	Standard protein alignments
FSA	Sequence annealing	Limited performance [83]	Simple alignment tasks

Experimental Protocols for Benchmarking Reconstruction Accuracy

Experimental Phylogeny Benchmarking

The most rigorous approach for validating ASR methodology involves creating experimental phylogenies with known ancestral sequences:

Protocol:

• Phylogeny Generation: Begin with a single gene (e.g., red fluorescent protein) and use random mutagenesis PCR to create descendants through multiple rounds of evolution, incorporating bifurcations to form a complete phylogeny [24].
• Sequence Collection: The final operational taxonomic units (leaves) serve as "extant" sequences, while internal nodes represent known ancestral sequences for benchmarking [24].
• Reconstruction Testing: Use leaf sequences to perform ASR with various algorithms and compare reconstructed sequences to known ancestors [24].
• Phenotypic Validation: Express and purify reconstructed ancestral proteins to characterize biochemical phenotypes (e.g., extinction coefficients, quantum yield, brightness) and compare to true ancestral phenotypes [24].

Key Findings: This approach revealed that while all algorithms correctly infer most residues (97.88-98.17% accuracy), Bayesian methods incorporating rate variation significantly outperform maximum parsimony in phenotypic accuracy, despite minimal differences in sequence identity [24].

Extant Sequence Reconstruction (ESR) Cross-Validation

A practical validation method applicable to real biological sequences:

Protocol:

• Sequence Selection: From a multiple sequence alignment of extant proteins, select one sequence to treat as the "unknown" target [85].
• Reconstruction: Use the remaining sequences to perform ASR to infer the sequence treated as unknown [85].
• Validation: Compare the reconstructed sequence to the actual known sequence to quantify accuracy [85].
• Model Testing: Repeat across multiple sequences and with different evolutionary models to identify optimal parameters [85].

Key Insights: ESR reveals that the most probable reconstruction is not always the most biophysically accurate, and sampling multiple reconstructions from the posterior distribution can yield sequences with fewer errors than the single most probable sequence [85].

ASPEN Ensemble Approach

The ASPEN (Accuracy through Subsampling of Protein EvolutioN) methodology addresses uncertainty through ensemble modeling:

Protocol:

• Subsampling: Generate multiple sequence subsamples from available ortholog sequences [28].
• Ensemble Reconstruction: Infer hundreds of phylogenetic models from different subsamples [28].
• Feature Identification: Identify topological features that recur most frequently across reconstructions [28].
• Consistency Scoring: Select topologies that are most consistent with the identified robust features [28].

Key Advantages: Topologies identified through this ensemble approach demonstrate significantly higher accuracy than single-alignment reconstructions, and the reproducibility of reconstructions across subsamples correlates directly with accuracy [28].

Visualization of ASR Validation Workflows

Experimental Phylogeny Validation

Figure 1: Workflow for experimental phylogeny validation of ASR algorithms. This approach creates a known evolutionary history to quantitatively assess reconstruction accuracy against true ancestral sequences and their phenotypes [24].

ASPEN Ensemble Validation

Figure 2: ASPEN ensemble validation workflow. This methodology uses systematic subsampling of available sequences to identify topological features robust to phylogenetic uncertainty, resulting in more accurate reconstructions [28].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents & Solutions

Table 3: Key research reagents and solutions for ASR validation studies

Reagent/Solution	Function in ASR Validation	Example Applications
Fluorescent Protein Genes	Serve as tractable model system with easily measurable phenotypes	Experimental phylogeny benchmarking [24]
Random Mutagenesis PCR Kits	Generate sequence diversity for experimental evolution	Creating descendant sequences in phylogenies [24]
Protein Expression & Purification Systems	Produce ancestral protein variants for phenotypic characterization	Validating biochemical properties of reconstructions [24]
Spectrofluorometers	Quantify fluorescent protein phenotypes (extinction coefficients, quantum yield)	Phenotypic accuracy assessment [24]
Multiple Sequence Alignment Tools	Align sequences for phylogenetic analysis	PRANK, MAFFT for evolutionary-based alignment [83]
Phylogenetic Software Packages	Implement ASR algorithms (Bayesian, Maximum Parsimony)	PAML, PhyloBayes, FastML for sequence reconstruction [24]

Discussion: Integration with In Vivo Validation Paradigms

For researchers engaged in in vivo target validation, the confidence metrics and validation protocols described herein provide critical gatekeeping functions before proceeding to resource-intensive functional studies. In vivo validation methodologies—including gene invalidation, RNA interference, and protein functional knockout models [84]—require high-fidelity input sequences to yield biologically meaningful results.

The experimental evidence demonstrates that Bayesian methods incorporating rate variation generally provide the most reliable reconstructions for both sequence and phenotypic accuracy [24]. However, the optimal approach may depend on specific project requirements. For studies where computational resources are limited and sequence accuracy is paramount, Bayesian methods without rate variation offer a reasonable compromise. The ASPEN ensemble method provides particularly robust uncertainty quantification but requires substantial computational resources [28].

Crucially, the selection of multiple sequence alignment methodology should not be an afterthought, as alignment errors can significantly bias ancestral reconstructions [83]. Phylogeny-aware aligners like PRANK generally outperform progressive methods, particularly for sequences with insertion-deletion events [83].

Addressing phylogenetic and reconstruction uncertainty requires a multifaceted approach that combines computational benchmarking with experimental validation. The methodologies compared in this guide—from experimental phylogenies to extant sequence reconstruction and ensemble methods—provide researchers with a robust toolkit for quantifying confidence in ancestral sequence reconstructions.

For the drug development professional, these confidence measures are not merely academic exercises but essential quality controls that de-risk the substantial investments required for in vivo functional validation. By implementing these protocols and selecting reconstruction methods based on empirical performance data, researchers can advance ancestral protein studies with greater confidence in their biological and therapeutic relevance.

The resurrection and validation of ancestral proteins through ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) represents a powerful frontier in evolutionary biochemistry and therapeutic development [1]. This methodology uses related sequences to computationally reconstruct an "ancestral" gene from a multiple sequence alignment, followed by synthesis and experimental characterization [1]. However, the functional validation of these reconstructed proteins, particularly in in vivo systems, faces a significant challenge: the potential for modern contaminants to confound experimental results and lead to erroneous conclusions about ancestral protein function. Contamination control must therefore be integrated as a fundamental component of experimental design rather than merely a supplementary consideration.

The implications of contamination are particularly profound in ASR studies, where researchers are attempting to characterize proteins that may have existed millions or even billions of years ago [1]. Low-biomass samples are especially vulnerable to being overwhelmed by contaminating DNA, which can generate misleading results in sequence-based analyses [86]. This review systematically compares contemporary contamination control methodologies, provides experimental protocols for validating ancestral protein functions, and establishes a framework for ensuring research integrity in this rapidly advancing field.

Primary Contamination Vectors in Biological Research

• Reagent Contamination: Commercial DNA extraction kits and other laboratory reagents frequently contain detectable levels of contaminating DNA, with compositions that vary significantly between different kits and manufacturing batches [86]. These contaminants predominantly consist of bacterial genera commonly associated with soil and water environments, including Acinetobacter, Bacillus, Bradyrhizobium, Herbaspirium, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia, and Sphingomonas [86].

• Cross-Contamination in Model Systems: Congenic mouse strains, widely used in host-pathogen interaction studies, often harbor genetic "passenger mutations" from the original embryonic stem cell lineage, which can significantly alter experimental outcomes [87]. For instance, studies of Salmonella infection using TLR7-deficient congenic mice initially suggested a strong protective effect, which was later attributed to contamination with the wild-type Nramp1 gene from the 129 mouse strain background rather than the TLR7 deficiency itself [87].

• Microplastic Contamination: Emerging research indicates that micro- and nanoplastics (MNPs) can infiltrate biological systems through environmental sources, agricultural practices, and packaging materials, potentially crossing biological barriers and accumulating in organs, including neuronal tissues [88]. These particles can disrupt normal biological processes through oxidative stress, endoplasmic reticulum stress, lysosomal dysfunction, and altered proinflammatory gene expression [88].

Impact of Contamination on Experimental Outcomes

The consequences of contamination are particularly pronounced in low-biomass studies and sensitive molecular techniques. Research has demonstrated that in samples with low microbial biomass, contaminating DNA can become the dominant feature of sequencing results, effectively swamping the true signal [86]. In shotgun metagenomics studies, the proportion of reads mapping to the target organism decreases significantly with serial dilutions, while contaminating sequences become increasingly predominant [86]. This effect varies substantially between different commercial DNA extraction kits, with each kit producing a distinct profile of contaminating bacteria [86].

Table 1: Quantitative Impact of Contamination on Sequence-Based Analyses

Sample Type	Contamination Effect	Experimental Impact	Reference
Pure Salmonella bongori culture (10³ cells)	Contamination became dominant feature in sequencing (40 PCR cycles)	Up to 500 copies/μl of background DNA detected via qPCR	[86]
Low microbial biomass samples	Contaminating DNA exceeds target DNA	False taxonomic distributions and frequencies	[86]
Congenic mouse models	Retention of 129 strain genetic material (~20 passenger mutations)	Misattribution of phenotypic effects to targeted gene	[87]
Ancestral protein resurrection	Potential introduction of modern contaminants	Altered functional characterization of ancient proteins	[1]

Comprehensive Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) for In Vivo Studies

The Three Pillars of Effective Contamination Control

A robust Contamination Control Strategy (CCS) should be implemented across research facilities to define all critical control points and assess the effectiveness of controls and monitoring measures [89]. This holistic approach consists of three interconnected pillars:

• Prevention: The most effective means to control contamination involves keeping contaminants from reaching critical processing areas [89]. Prevention strategies should include well-defined programs incorporating understanding of manufacturing processes, objective risk assessments focusing on process variables and contamination sources, achievable acceptance criteria and metrics, performance monitoring, and adjustment plans [89]. Key elements include personnel training and qualification, implementation of advanced aseptic technologies, automation, barrier systems, and rigorous quality control of all materials entering cleanroom environments [89].

• Remediation: This pillar involves responding to contamination events through evaluation, investigation, and specific corrective and preventive actions (CAPA) to maintain or return processes to a controlled state [89]. Effective remediation includes decontamination protocols combining cleaning, disinfection, sterilization, purification, and filtration methods [89]. For intrinsic contamination generated from machinery, scheduled cleaning is essential, while extrinsic contamination from personnel or materials requires elimination and surface decontamination [89].

• Monitoring and Continuous Improvement: Understanding the effectiveness of prevention and remediation strategies requires monitoring critical contamination control parameters, with more critical parameters potentially requiring continuous monitoring [89]. Establishing meaningful alarm, action, and trending levels enables proactive contamination control rather than reactive responses [89]. This data-driven approach facilitates ongoing process refinement and contamination risk reduction [89].

Implementing a CCS for Ancestral Protein Studies

For researchers validating ancestral protein functions, several specific controls are essential:

• Negative Controls: Concurrent sequencing of negative control samples consisting of 'blank' DNA extractions and subsequent PCR amplifications is strongly advised to identify contaminating taxa [86]. These controls should be processed simultaneously with experimental samples using the same batch of reagents.

• CRISPR/Cas9 Validation: When using congenic animal models, CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing in cell lines can help determine the contribution of background genetic contamination to observed phenotypes [87]. This approach provides a critical complementary strategy to verify that phenotypic effects are attributable to the targeted gene rather than passenger mutations.

• Process Controls: Implementation of automated, continuous, closed or semi-closed manufacturing equipment and product-specific devices minimizes the risk of microbial and particulate contamination [90]. Establishing robust product traceability management systems ensures traceability from suppliers to recipients [90].

Table 2: Essential Research Reagent Solutions for Contamination Control

Reagent/Equipment	Function	Contamination Risk Mitigated
Commercial DNA Extraction Kits	Nucleic acid purification	Reagent-derived contaminating DNA [86]
CRISPR/Cas9 System	Gene editing in cell lines	Validation of congenic model phenotypes [87]
Automated Closed Systems	Cell processing and manipulation	Environmental microbial contamination [90]
High-Specificity Primers	Targeted PCR amplification	Non-specific amplification artifacts
Barrier Technology	Physical separation of critical areas	Personnel-derived contamination [89]
Vendor-Managed Raw Materials	Quality-assured reagents	Introduction of contaminants from supplies [89]

Experimental Design for Validating Ancestral Protein Functions

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Methodology

Ancestral sequence reconstruction begins with the alignment of homologous protein sequences from extant species, followed by phylogenetic tree construction with inferred sequences at the nodes of branches [1]. The most common computational approaches include:

• Maximum Likelihood (ML) Methods: These generate sequences where the residue at each position is predicted to be the most likely to occupy that position using a scoring matrix calculated from extant sequences [1]. ML represents the best point estimate of the true ancestral sequence but is seldom inferred with certainty.

• Bayesian Methods: These complement ML methods but typically produce more ambiguous sequences, requiring additional experimental characterization to address uncertainty [15].

• Maximum Parsimony (MP): This approach constructs sequences based on a model of sequence evolution assuming the minimum number of nucleotidal changes, though it is often considered less reliable for very ancient reconstructions as it may oversimplify evolutionary processes [1].

A significant challenge in ASR is addressing statistical uncertainty in reconstructed sequences. Research has demonstrated that while qualitative conclusions about ancestral proteins' functions are generally robust to sequence uncertainty, quantitative descriptors of function can vary among plausible sequences [15]. This underscores the importance of experimentally characterizing robustness, particularly when precise quantitative estimates of ancient biochemical parameters are desired.

Ancestral Protein Validation with Integrated Contamination Controls

Addressing Statistical Uncertainty in Ancestral Reconstruction

Several strategies have been developed to evaluate the robustness of ancestral protein functions to statistical uncertainty:

• Single-Residue Neighbors: Creating variants of the maximum likelihood ancestral sequence, each containing a plausible alternate amino acid at one of the ambiguously reconstructed sites [15]. This approach determines the impact of each plausible alternate amino acid in isolation.

• AltAll Reconstruction: Incorporating all plausible alternate states into a single "worst plausible case" protein, which provides a conservative test of functional robustness to sequence uncertainty [15]. This method addresses potential epistatic interactions among plausible alternative states.

• Bayesian Sampling: Constructing a set of sequences by choosing an amino acid state from the posterior probability distribution of ancestral states at each site [15]. This approach provides insight into the distribution of functions associated with the posterior probability distribution of sequences.

Research across three different protein domain families has demonstrated that qualitative conclusions about ancestral proteins' functions and the effects of key historical mutations are generally robust to sequence uncertainty, with similar functions observed even when scores of alternate amino acids are incorporated [15]. However, quantitative descriptors of function do vary among plausible sequences, emphasizing the importance of experimental characterization when precise biochemical parameters are desired.

Case Studies in Contamination Control and Ancestral Protein Validation

Successful Ancestral Protein Resurrection with Pharmaceutical Applications

The application of ASR to coagulation Factor VIII (FVIII) exemplifies the potential of this approach for therapeutic development. Researchers reconstructed ancestral FVIII proteins dating back approximately 500 million years, identifying candidates with superior properties compared to current human FVIII biologics [5]. These ancestral variants demonstrated:

• Enhanced Biosynthetic Efficiency: Protein expression rates 9-14-fold higher than human FVIII, addressing a major limitation in recombinant FVIII manufacturing [5].

• Reduced Immunogenicity: Markedly reduced cross-reactivity with monoclonal antibodies that target clinically relevant epitopes, with >75% reduction in inhibition by hemophilia A patient plasma in some cases [5].

• Improved Functional Properties: Increased specific activity and, in some lineages, significantly prolonged functional stability following proteolytic activation [5].

These improvements were achieved despite the reconstructed ancestral sequences sharing up to 95% identity with human FVIII, demonstrating ASR's ability to guide recombinant protein bioengineering and humanization [5].

CRISPR/Cas9 Correction of Congenic Contamination

Research on Toll-like receptor 7 (TLR7) deficiency highlights how CRISPR/Cas9 gene editing can correct and validate findings from congenic models. Initial studies using TLR7-deficient congenic mice showed a strong protective effect against Salmonella infection [87]. However, genetic analysis revealed that these mice harbored the wild-type Nramp1 gene from the 129 mouse strain background, rather than the mutated Nramp1 variant typically found in C57BL/6 mice [87].

When researchers used CRISPR/Cas9 to generate TLR7-deficient macrophage cell lines on a controlled genetic background, they found that TLR7-deficiency had no significant impact on Salmonella infection outcomes [87]. This case underscores the importance of verifying results from congenic models with contemporary gene editing technologies and the potential for genetic contamination to fundamentally alter experimental conclusions.

Congenic Contamination Impact on Experimental Conclusions

Best Practices and Future Directions

Integrated Quality Management for Ancestral Protein Studies

Based on current evidence, researchers validating ancestral protein functions in vivo should implement the following best practices:

• Comprehensive Reagent Screening: Establish rigorous quality control procedures for all reagents, with particular attention to DNA extraction kits and other molecular biology reagents known to harbor contaminating DNA [86]. Maintain detailed records of lot numbers and supplier information to track potential contamination sources.

• Genetic Background Verification: When using congenic animal models, verify the genetic background at critical loci, particularly those known to influence the phenotypic outcomes under investigation [87]. Supplement studies with CRISPR/Cas9-generated models where feasible to control for passenger mutations.

• Robust Statistical Characterization: Address uncertainty in ancestral sequence reconstructions through multiple methods, including characterization of single-residue neighbors, AltAll reconstructions, and Bayesian sampling approaches [15]. This is particularly important when quantitative biochemical parameters are central to research conclusions.

• Environmental Monitoring: Implement continuous monitoring of critical parameters in cell culture and animal facilities, with established alarm, action, and trending levels to enable proactive contamination control [89].

• Multi-level Validation: Employ orthogonal validation methods, combining in vitro characterization with controlled in vivo models, and utilizing both traditional congenic approaches and contemporary gene editing technologies [87].

Emerging Challenges and Opportunities

As ASR methodologies advance and are applied to increasingly ancient proteins, new challenges in contamination control will likely emerge. The reconstruction of proteins dating back billions of years [1] presents unique challenges for functional validation, as modern experimental systems may not accurately replicate ancient cellular environments. Additionally, the growing recognition of micro- and nanoplastic contamination [88] underscores the need for ongoing vigilance regarding novel contamination sources that may interfere with biological assays.

Future directions in the field include the development of more sophisticated computational models that better account for ancestral sequence uncertainty, improved methods for characterizing the distribution of functions among plausible ancestral sequences, and the creation of specialized laboratory environments designed specifically for working with low-biomass samples and conducting contamination-sensitive research.

By integrating robust contamination control strategies with rigorous experimental design and validation methodologies, researchers can continue to leverage the power of ancestral protein reconstruction to advance our understanding of protein evolution while developing novel therapeutic agents with enhanced properties.

In the field of protein engineering and evolutionary biology, researchers often attempt to transfer functional elements between proteins through horizontal sequence swaps. This approach, while intuitively appealing, frequently fails to yield functional hybrids. The underlying reason for these failures lies in epistasis—the context-dependent effect of genetic changes where the functional impact of a mutation depends on the genetic background in which it occurs. Epistasis creates a rugged fitness landscape where protein function emerges from complex interactions between amino acids, meaning that simple sequence modularity is the exception rather than the rule [91] [92].

Understanding epistasis is particularly crucial for validating ancestral protein functions in vivo, where researchers attempt to reconstruct and characterize ancient proteins to understand evolutionary trajectories. This comparative guide examines the experimental evidence for epistasis, directly compares methodologies for studying it, and provides researchers with practical tools for designing functional protein hybrids in light of these challenges.

The Experimental Evidence: Quantifying Epistasis

Key Studies Demonstrating Epistatic Effects

Recent research has provided compelling quantitative evidence for the prevalence and impact of epistasis in protein function:

Study System	Experimental Approach	Key Finding on Epistasis	Impact on Function
Ancient Steroid Hormone Receptor DBD [91]	20-state combinatorial deep mutational scanning	Genetic architecture consists of dense main and pairwise effects; higher-order epistasis plays minimal role	Pairwise epistasis massively expands opportunities for specificity switching between DNA elements
Dicer Helicase Domain [4]	Ancestral protein reconstruction	Loss of ATPase function in vertebrate ancestor involved substitutions distant from active site	Reverting active-site residues was insufficient to rescue hydrolysis without distant contextual substitutions
Allosteric Protein Models [92]	Direct coupling analysis of in silico evolved proteins	Four types of epistasis observed (Synergistic, Sign, Antagonistic, Saturation) across short and long ranges	DCA failed to capture long-range epistasis despite its functional importance

The steroid hormone receptor study provides particularly compelling evidence that pairwise epistasis facilitates rather than constrains evolutionary paths by bringing functional variants with different specificities closer together in sequence space [91]. This finding contradicts the traditional view that epistasis primarily constrains evolutionary trajectories.

Experimental Measurement of Epistasis

The quantitative measurement of epistasis follows specific experimental protocols and calculations:

Epistasis Calculation Protocol:

• Measure fitness (F) of wild-type protein
• Measure fitness of single mutants (Fáµ¢, Fâ±¼)
• Measure fitness of double mutant (Fᵢⱼ)
• Calculate epistasis: ε = Fᵢⱼ - Fáµ¢ - Fâ±¼ + F

In specialized experimental systems, such as elastic network models of allosteric proteins, epistasis can be interpreted mechanically through the propagation of structural deformations: ΔΔFᵢⱼ ≈ -Fᴬᶜ · (δRᵢⱼᴬˡ→ᴬᶜ - δRᵢᴬˡ→ᴬᶜ - δRⱼᴬˡ→ᴬᶜ) where R represents the allosteric response field [92].

Comparative Analysis of Methodologies for Studying Epistasis

Experimental Approaches

Methodology	Key Features	Advantages	Limitations	Best Applications
Combinatorial DMS [91]	Tests all amino acid combinations at focused sites; uses ordinal logistic regression	Global, reference-free genetic architecture dissection; dense functional mapping	Limited to ~3-4 sites due to combinatorial explosion	Mapping determinants of functional specificity
Ancestral Reconstruction [4] [93]	Resurrects ancient proteins to trace evolutionary histories	Provides historical perspective; tests evolutionary hypotheses	Uncertainty in sequence prediction; statistical limitations	Understanding functional losses/gains in evolution
Direct Coupling Analysis [92]	Infers epistasis from evolutionary correlations in sequence alignments	Uses natural sequence variation; contact prediction	Poor at capturing long-range epistasis	Identifying structural contacts; sector analysis
Autoregressive Models (ArDCA) [93]	Generative model accounting for epistasis in phylogenetic inference	Incorporates context dependence; improved ancestral reconstruction	Computationally intensive; complex implementation	ASR when epistasis is suspected to be important

Computational Prediction Methods

Prediction Method	Input Data	Epistasis Modeling	Performance Characteristics
ProteInfer [94]	Amino acid sequence	Implicit via convolutional neural networks	Complements alignment-based methods; computationally efficient
Global Epistasis Models [95]	Experimental fitness measurements	Explicit latent fitness function with nonlinear transform	Effective for ranking functions; handles limited data
Functional Regression Models [96]	RNA-seq position-level counts	Gene-based interaction testing	Captures isoform and position-level information
Contrastive Loss Models [95]	Sequence-fitness pairs	Generalized global epistasis via ranking loss	Data-efficient; outperforms MSE on benchmark tasks

Research Reagent Solutions

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Context
Ordinal Logistic Regression Model [91]	Dissects genetic architecture from DMS data	Reference-free analysis of 20-state combinatorial DMS
Autoregressive Model (ArDCA) [93]	Generative protein sequence model	Ancestral sequence reconstruction with epistasis
Direct Coupling Analysis [92]	Infers evolutionary couplings from MSA	Identifying co-evolving residues; contact prediction
Bradley-Terry Loss Function [95]	Ranking-based fitness estimation	Modeling global epistasis from limited data
Nonlinear Functional Regression [96]	Gene-level epistasis testing with RNA-seq	Position-level read count analysis for eQTL epistasis

Experimental Protocols

Combinatorial Deep Mutational Scanning Protocol

The following workflow illustrates the combinatorial DMS approach for mapping epistatic interactions:

Key Steps:

• Site Selection: Choose 3-4 structurally or functionally critical sites based on prior knowledge [91]
• Library Construction: Generate all possible amino acid combinations (20 states) at selected sites
• Multi-function Screening: Measure each variant's performance for multiple relevant functions (e.g., transcription activation from different DNA elements)
• Sequence-Function Mapping: Use deep sequencing to quantify variant abundances and calculate functional scores
• Genetic Architecture Modeling: Apply ordinal logistic regression to dissect main, pairwise, and higher-order effects
• Epistasis Quantification: Calculate the proportion of functional variance explained by different epistatic orders

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction with Epistasis

Protocol Details:

• Standard ASR: Uses continuous-time Markov chain models assuming site independence [93]
• Epistatic ASR: Employs autoregressive models (ArDCA) that account for context dependence [93]
• Validation: For the Dicer helicase study, biochemical assays measured ATPase activity and dsRNA binding affinity across ancestral nodes [4]
• Key Parameters: Michaelis constants (Kᴍ) for ATP affinity, stimulation by dsRNA binding [4]

Implications for Protein Engineering and Drug Development

The pervasive nature of epistasis has profound implications for biotherapeutic development and protein engineering strategies:

Rational Design Limitations:

• Horizontal swap failures occur because functional elements are embedded in specific epistatic networks
• Ancestral resurrection challenges emerge from incomplete understanding of historical genetic contexts [4] [93]
• Drug resistance predictions become uncertain when mutations have context-dependent effects

Alternative Engineering Strategies:

• Epistasis-aware libraries that sample combinations rather than individual mutations
• Generative protein models that implicitly capture epistatic constraints [93] [94]
• Global epistasis modeling that separates latent fitness from nonlinear transformations [95]

The experimental evidence consistently demonstrates that protein function cannot be reduced to modular components that can be freely exchanged. Success in ancestral protein validation and protein engineering requires methodologies that explicitly account for the pervasive context-dependence of amino acid effects—the fundamental challenge of epistasis that makes horizontal sequence swaps unreliable. Researchers must incorporate epistatic mapping into their experimental designs and leverage the growing toolkit of computational methods that move beyond additive models of protein function.

For researchers exploring the deep history of protein evolution, a critical question emerges at the intersection of computational prediction and experimental validation: will a computationally resurrected ancient protein function within the complex cellular environment of a contemporary host organism? Ancestral sequence reconstruction (ASR) has become a powerful tool for inferring the sequences of long-extinct proteins, enabling scientists to form testable hypotheses about molecular evolution. However, the ultimate challenge lies in moving from in silico predictions to in vivo functionality, requiring these ancient proteins to not only fold correctly but also interact productively with modern cellular systems. This guide objectively compares the functional outcomes of ancient proteins in contemporary hosts, providing a framework for evaluating their performance through standardized experimental data and methodologies.

Table of Experimental Outcomes for Ancient Proteins in Modern Systems

Table 1: Experimentally measured functional parameters of resurrected ancestral proteins in contemporary host systems.

Ancestral Protein	Modern Host	Key Functional Metrics	Experimental Outcome	Primary Challenge Identified	Citation
Ancestral Dicer Helicase (AncD1D2)	In vitro assay	ATP hydrolysis rate, dsRNA binding affinity	Retained dsRNA-stimulated ATPase activity; higher dsRNA affinity than vertebrate Dicer	Loss of function in vertebrate lineage due to decreased dsRNA/ATP affinity	[4]
Ancestral HLD-RLuc (AncHLD-RLuc)	E. coli & mammalian cells	Luciferase activity (kcat/Km), thermal stability (Tm)	Bifunctional dehalogenase/luciferase; 124-fold enhanced catalytic efficiency after engineering	Product inhibition; required loop-helix fragment transplantation for optimal function	[97]
Beneficial De Novo Proteins (BEPs) in Yeast	S. cerevisiae	Growth benefit under nutrient stress, subcellular localization	27% localized to ER (vs. 8% of native proteome); provided broad growth benefits	Susceptibility to degradation; dependency on conserved targeting pathways	[98]

Experimental Workflows for Functional Validation

Validating the function of ancient proteins in modern hosts requires a multi-faceted approach, combining biochemical, structural, and cell biological techniques. The following section outlines proven experimental protocols for assessing whether resurrected proteins can integrate and function within contemporary cellular environments.

Phylogenetic Reconstruction and Sequence Resurrection

The foundation of all ancestral protein studies is a robust phylogenetic analysis. For the Dicer helicase study, researchers retrieved animal Dicer sequences from NCBI databases and truncated them to focus on the helicase domain and DUF283 (HEL-DUF) region. They then performed maximum likelihood (ML) phylogenetic tree construction followed by ancestral sequence reconstruction on key nodes, generating hypothetical sequences for ancestors including AncD1D2 (the ancient animal Dicer), AncD1 (deuterostome ancestor), and the vertebrate Dicer-1 ancestor [4]. Advanced methods now incorporate autoregressive generative models that account for epistasis (the context-dependence of mutations), providing more accurate reconstructions than models that assume independent sites [93].

Biochemical Activity Profiling

Once resurrected, ancestral proteins must be expressed and purified for functional characterization. The Dicer study utilized ATPase activity assays to measure hydrolysis rates in the presence and absence of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). They determined Michaelis constants (K M) to quantify ATP affinity, revealing that ancient Dicer possessed ATPase function stimulated by dsRNA through increased ATP affinity—a capability lost in the vertebrate ancestor [4]. For the ancestral luciferase AncHLD-RLuc, researchers conducted steady-state and pre-steady-state kinetic analyses with the substrate coelenterazine to determine kcat and kcat/Km values, and numerically simulated progress curves to estimate equilibrium dissociation constants for enzyme-product complexes (K p) [97].

Subcellular Localization and Cellular Integration Mapping

For de novo proteins in yeast, researchers systematically investigated cellular integration by creating C-terminal BEP-EGFP fusions expressed on plasmids under inducible promoters. They used fluorescence microscopy to determine subcellular localization and immunoblotting to assess protein abundance and degradation susceptibility [98]. To test functional importance, they employed growth assays under nutrient stress conditions, revealing that ER-localized BEPs provided benefits across a broader array of stress conditions than other BEPs [98].

Engineering to Enhance Modern Compatibility

When ancestral proteins show suboptimal function in modern hosts, engineering approaches can bridge the compatibility gap. For AncHLD-RLuc, researchers used TRIAD (transposition-based random insertions and deletions) mutagenesis to generate libraries of variants with single amino acid insertions and deletions [97]. They screened for improved luciferase activity while monitoring dehalogenase activity, identifying key structural regions (L9 loop, α4 helix, L14 loop) where modifications enhanced function. The most successful approach involved transplantation of a dynamic loop-helix fragment from modern Renilla luciferases into the ancestral scaffold, which reduced product inhibition and dramatically improved bioluminescence output [97].

Cellular Integration Pathways for Ancient and De Novo Proteins

The journey of a nascent or resurrected protein within a modern cell is governed by conserved cellular systems. Research on de novo proteins in yeast reveals that beneficial de novo proteins (BEPs) frequently exploit conserved membrane targeting, trafficking, and degradation pathways.

Diagram 1: Cellular integration pathway for ancient and de novo proteins with C-terminal transmembrane domains (TMDs). The pathway shows how proteins exploit conserved cellular systems for localization and homeostasis.

This convergence on similar structural features and targeting mechanisms points to a common evolutionary route for novel proteins to integrate into modern cells: through membranes and by harnessing ancient regulatory pathways [98]. The ER membrane appears to act as a "safe harbor" where certain classes of novel proteins can acquire selected functions over time, serving as a cradle for evolutionary innovation.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key reagents and methodologies for studying ancient protein function in modern hosts.

Research Reagent/Method	Primary Function	Application Example	Citation
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR)	Infer extinct protein sequences from phylogenetic data	Resurrecting ancestral Dicer helicase domains across animal evolution	[4]
Autoregressive Generative Models (ArDCA)	Protein sequence modeling accounting for epistasis	Improved accuracy in ancestral sequence reconstruction	[93]
TRIAD Mutagenesis	Generate random insertion-deletion libraries	Engineering ancestral luciferase for improved activity in modern hosts	[97]
C-terminal EGFP Fusions	Visualize protein localization in live cells	Mapping subcellular localization of de novo proteins in yeast	[98]
ATPase Activity Assays	Measure enzymatic ATP hydrolysis kinetics	Quantifying functional changes in ancestral Dicer helicases	[4]
Steady-State and Pre-Steady-State Kinetics	Determine catalytic efficiency and mechanism	Characterizing ancestral luciferase reaction parameters	[97]
Anisotropic Network Model (ANM)	Compute cross-correlation of protein motions	Analyzing dynamic changes in engineered ancestral proteins	[97]

The question of whether an ancient protein will function in a contemporary host does not yield a simple yes or no answer but rather exists along a spectrum of functional compatibility. Resurrected ancestral proteins can indeed function in modern cellular environments, but their success depends on multiple factors including their ability to engage conserved cellular pathways, their structural stability in the host context, and the functional requirements placed upon them. The experimental data consistently show that ancient proteins with membrane-targeting signatures—particularly C-terminal transmembrane domains—demonstrate superior integration capabilities by leveraging evolutionarily conserved targeting and quality control systems. For researchers in drug development, these findings highlight both opportunities and challenges: ancestral proteins may offer novel functional scaffolds, but their optimization frequently requires strategic engineering to ensure compatibility with modern cellular environments. The methodologies and comparative data presented here provide a framework for systematically evaluating this compatibility, moving the field beyond sequence resurrection to functional validation in biologically relevant contexts.

The validation of ancestral protein functions in vivo represents a significant challenge in evolutionary biology and drug development. The process is often hampered by the inherent risks and inefficiencies of traditional, purely experimental approaches. In this context, a new paradigm has emerged: the integration of machine learning (ML) with purpose-built experimental frameworks to create predictive, de-risked research and development pipelines. These integrated methodologies, often termed 'grey-box' approaches, strategically combine computational prediction with targeted experimental validation. They occupy a crucial middle ground between purely theoretical "white-box" models (based entirely on known physics and principles) and purely phenomenological "black-box" screening. This guide objectively compares the current landscape of computational tools and their associated experimental protocols, providing researchers with a data-driven framework for selecting and implementing these approaches to streamline the functional analysis of ancestral proteins.

The 'Grey-Box' Paradigm in Biosciences

The concept of "grey-box" screening was innovated to leverage the emergent properties of protein complexes within a controlled in vitro environment [99]. This approach aims to achieve a functional compromise; it offers greater phenotypic complexity than a simple biochemical assay focused on a single protein, while avoiding the target identification challenges that follow a cell-based "black-box" screen [99]. In a typical grey-box setup, multiple components of a protein complex are purified and reconstituted in vitro. Although only one core enzyme might have a directly measurable activity, the supplemental components create a system that better approximates the complex's native functional state [99]. This methodology was successfully demonstrated by the Gestwicki group, which identified the flavonoid myricetin as an inhibitor of the DnaK-DnaJ chaperone complex by targeting the enhanced ATPase activity that emerges only when both proteins interact [99].

The contemporary extension of this philosophy leverages machine learning to create computational grey-box models. These models are trained on existing data to predict protein behavior, thereby guiding which experiments are most likely to succeed. This is particularly powerful in scenarios where experimental data is scarce, a common situation in ancestral protein research.

Comparison of Modern Computational Tools for Protein Engineering

The field of computational protein design has been revolutionized by machine learning, providing scientists with an extensive toolkit for predictive modeling. The table below summarizes the core functionalities, strengths, and limitations of key tools relevant to de-risking experimental designs for ancestral protein validation.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Computational Tools for Protein Design and Engineering

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Strengths	Documented Limitations
METL (Biophysics-Based PLM) [100]	Predicts protein properties (e.g., stability, activity) by integrating biophysical simulation data.	Excels in low-data regimes and generalizing from small training sets (<64 examples); incorporates fundamental biophysical principles.	Performance can be dependent on the relevance of Rosetta's energy function to the specific experimental property being predicted.
ESM-2 (Evolutionary PLM) [100]	General protein language model trained on evolutionary sequence data.	Powerful when fine-tuned on large, relevant datasets; captures evolutionary constraints.	Less effective than specialized models like METL when very limited experimental data is available.
ProteinMPNN [101]	Sequence optimization for a given protein backbone (inverse folding).	High sequence recovery rate (53%); improves stability and solubility in experimental validation.	Requires a defined structural template as input for sequence generation.
RFDiffusion [101]	De novo protein backbone generation and design.	Can create entirely new protein folds and binders not observed in nature.	Designs require extensive experimental validation; success rate, while improved, is not 100%.
AlphaFold2/3 [102] [101]	Protein structure prediction from amino acid sequence.	Highly accurate for many single-chain proteins and some complexes; vastly expands accessible structural space.	Accuracy for antibody-antigen and other transient complexes remains challenging; is a prediction tool, not a direct design tool.

Quantitative performance comparisons reveal the contextual superiority of different tools. In one systematic evaluation, METL-Local demonstrated a distinct advantage in data-scarce scenarios, enabling the design of functional green fluorescent protein (GFP) variants when trained on only 64 sequence–function examples [100]. In the same study, evolutionary models like ESM-2 typically gained a performance advantage as training set size increased, while physics-based tools like Rosetta provided a strong baseline for zero-shot predictions without requiring experimental training data [100]. For sequence design, ProteinMPNN has been experimentally validated to achieve a ~53% sequence recovery rate, a significant improvement over the ~33% rate of traditional energy-based methods like Rosetta [101].

Experimental Protocols for Validating Computational Predictions

Protocol for In Vitro Grey-Box Screening of Protein Complexes

This protocol is adapted from the foundational work on the DnaK-DnaJ system [99] and can be adapted for validating the function of reconstituted ancestral protein complexes.

• Protein Complex Reconstitution: Purify the individual protein components of interest (e.g., an ancestral enzyme and its putative regulatory subunit). Combine the components in an optimized buffer ratio to reconstitute the functional complex in vitro [99].
• Assay Development: Establish a high-throughput biochemical assay that measures a key emergent activity of the complex. The original study used a malachite green-based ATPase assay to measure the DnaJ-stimulated ATP hydrolysis of DnaK [99].
• High-Throughput Screening: Screen libraries of small molecules or natural extracts against the reconstituted complex. To bias the screen toward discovering non-competitive allosteric inhibitors, consider performing the assay at high concentrations of native substrates (e.g., ATP) [99].
• Hit Validation and Characterization: Confirm active compounds ("hits") and proceed with structural biology studies (e.g., X-ray crystallography) to determine the mechanism of action, which may reveal allosteric inhibition, as was the case with myricetin [99].

Protocol for ML-Guided Directed Evolution

This protocol outlines the iterative cycle of machine learning prediction and experimental testing for optimizing protein functions [103].

• Initial Library Creation & Characterization: Generate an initial library of protein sequence variants. Measure the function of interest (e.g., thermostability, catalytic activity) for a representative subset of this library to create a foundational sequence-function dataset [103] [100].
• Model Training: Use the experimental data to train a machine-learning model (e.g., METL or a fine-tuned ESM-2) to predict protein function from sequence [100].
• In Silico Screening & Selection: The trained model screens a vast number of in silico sequence variants and predicts their performance. A select set of sequences, chosen for their high predicted function and sequence diversity, is recommended for synthesis [103].
• Experimental Validation: The selected variants are synthesized and tested experimentally in the lab.
• Model Retraining: The new experimental data is fed back into the model to improve its predictive accuracy for the next cycle. This iterative loop continues until a variant with the desired properties is obtained [103].

Protocol for Spatiotemporal Control of Protein Expression In Vivo

For validating ancestral protein function in live animal models, controlling when and where the protein is expressed is critical. The following protocol, based on a recent optochemical method, enables this precise control [104].

• System Design: The system requires two components: a standard translation-blocking morpholino (tbMO) that is complementary to the mRNA of the ancestral protein of interest, and a photocaged, cell-permeable GMO-PMO chimera (cPMO2) whose sequence is complementary to the tbMO [104].
• Microinjection: Co-inject the in vitro-transcribed mRNA (for the ancestral protein) and the tbMO into zebrafish or other model organism embryos at the one-cell stage. The tbMO will bind the mRNA and block its translation.
• Photoactivation: At the desired developmental time point and in the specific tissue region of interest, expose the embryos to UV light (365 nm). This uncages the cPMO2, activating it.
• Strand Displacement & Translation: The activated cPMO2 binds to the tbMO with high affinity, displacing it from the mRNA. The released mRNA is then translated into the ancestral protein, allowing researchers to study its functional effects in a spatiotemporally controlled manner [104].

The workflow for this optochemical control system is depicted in the diagram below.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Successfully implementing these integrated approaches requires a suite of specialized reagents and tools. The following table details key solutions for the featured methodologies.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Grey-Box and ML-Guided Experiments

Reagent / Solution	Function / Application	Key Features
GMO-PMO Chimera (cPMO2) [104]	Optochemical control of mRNA translation in vivo.	Cell-permeable; uncaged by UV light (365 nm) to displace a translation-blocking MO; enables spatiotemporal protein expression.
Rosetta Software Suite [100]	Molecular modeling and computational protein design.	Provides energy functions and algorithms for structure prediction, docking, and design; used for generating biophysical training data.
Phage/Yeast Display Libraries [101]	Experimental screening of protein variants for binding or stability.	Presents vast libraries of protein variants on the surface of phages or yeast cells for high-throughput screening.
Malachite Green Assay Kit [99]	Colorimetric measurement of ATPase/enzyme activity.	Enables high-throughput screening of enzymatic activity in reconstituted protein complex (grey-box) assays.
AlphaFold Database / PDB [102] [101]	Source of protein structural data for template-based design and analysis.	Provides access to millions of predicted (AlphaFold) and experimentally-solved (PDB) protein structures for computational analysis.

The integration of machine learning and grey-box methodologies represents a fundamental shift in how biological research is conducted. By leveraging computational tools like METL, ProteinMPNN, and RFDiffusion to predict and prioritize experimental queries, and by employing robust validation protocols from in vitro complex assays to in vivo optogenetic control, researchers can systematically de-risk the process of validating ancestral protein function. This objective comparison demonstrates that no single tool is universally superior; rather, the optimal choice depends on the specific research context, particularly the amount of available experimental data and the biological question at hand. The continued development and rigorous benchmarking of these tools promise to further accelerate the discovery and functional characterization of proteins, ultimately streamlining the path from genomic data to therapeutic and industrial applications.

Establishing Functional Fidelity: Robust Validation and Comparative Analysis

The resurrection of ancient proteins through Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) provides a powerful window into molecular evolution, enabling scientists to formulate and test hypotheses about the functional trajectories of enzymes, receptors, and other biologically critical proteins. However, the inferred functions of these ancestral proteins are only as credible as the validation strategies supporting them. Moving beyond simple in vitro characterization to robust in vivo validation presents unique challenges and requires a multi-faceted framework to ensure biological relevance. This guide establishes the core principles and methodologies for designing rigorous experimental validations of ancestral protein function within living systems, providing a benchmark for researchers in evolutionary biology and protein science.

Core Principles of a Validation Framework

Robust validation of ancestral protein function in vivo extends beyond confirming a single activity; it requires demonstrating that the protein operates meaningfully within a complex living system. The principles below adapt established clinical measurement standards to the unique challenges of prehistoric protein research [105].

• Verification: This initial step confirms the technical quality of the protein itself and the data collected about it. It requires verifying that the ancestral gene sequence was synthesized correctly, the protein is expressed at detectable levels in the model organism, and the raw data from the in vivo assay (e.g., video tracking, electrophysiology readings) is captured and stored faithfully.

• Analytical Validation: This phase ensures that the methods used to process raw data into a functional readout are accurate and precise. If an algorithm is used to quantify behavioral recovery in an animal model based on video tracking, analytical validation confirms that the algorithm reliably and consistently measures the intended behavior. It connects a specific molecular measurement to a defined biological state.

• Clinical (Biological) Validation: This is the most critical step for in vivo relevance. It demonstrates that the measured activity of the ancestral protein accurately reflects a meaningful biological or functional outcome within the living organism's context [105]. For example, it confirms that the restoration of a signaling protein's function not only activates a downstream pathway but also rescues a developmental defect.

Essential Experimental Methodologies

A robust in vivo validation strategy employs a suite of complementary techniques to probe different aspects of protein function within a living context.

Phenotypic Rescue Assays

This is often the gold standard for in vivo functional validation. The core methodology involves introducing the resurrected ancestral protein into a modern organism (e.g., bacteria, yeast, fruit fly, mouse) that has a null or defective version of the corresponding gene, and then monitoring for correction of the associated phenotypic defect [106].

Key Workflow:

• Model Selection: Choose an organism with a well-characterized and measurable phenotype from the loss of the protein's function.
• Genetic Engineering: Deliver the ancestral gene via transgenesis, viral vector, or other method into the mutant host organism.
• Phenotypic Scoring: Quantitatively assess the extent of phenotypic rescue. This requires well-defined, objective endpoints, such as:
  • Survival rate or viability under selective pressure.
  • Growth curves in microbial or cell culture systems.
  • Morphological analysis (e.g., rescuing a specific anatomical structure).
  • Behavioral metrics quantified using automated tracking systems [105].

Quantitative Measurement of Signaling & Metabolic Outputs

For proteins involved in signaling or metabolism, simply showing physical presence is insufficient. Validation requires demonstrating that the protein engages with and modulates its native in vivo pathways.

Key Workflow:

• Biosensor Integration: Use genetically encoded biosensors (e.g., for calcium, cAMP, or specific phosphorylation events) to monitor pathway activity in real-time within living cells or tissues.
• Metabolite Profiling: Employ techniques like mass spectrometry to measure changes in metabolite levels resulting from ancestral enzyme activity, comparing wild-type and mutant organisms.
• Transcriptional Reporting: Utilize reporter genes (e.g., GFP, luciferase) under the control of a promoter responsive to the pathway of interest to provide an amplifiable and quantifiable signal of functional output.

Assessing Robustness to Evolutionary Uncertainty

A unique challenge in ASR is statistical uncertainty in the inferred ancestral sequence. A functionally robust conclusion must account for this ambiguity [15].

Key Workflow:

• Construct Alternative Sequences: Generate and test not just the maximum likelihood (ML) ancestral sequence, but also plausible alternative variants. Key approaches include:
  • The "AltAll" Protein: Incorporate all plausible alternative amino acid states at ambiguous sites into a single protein, representing a "worst plausible case" scenario [15].
  • Posterior Sampling: Construct and test multiple individual proteins where each sequence is sampled from the posterior probability distribution of ancestral states [15].
• Functional Comparison: Subject the ML, AltAll, and sampled ancestors to the same in vivo phenotypic rescue assays. Qualitative consistency in functional outcomes across these variants strongly reinforces the biological conclusion, indicating it is robust to sequence uncertainty [15].

The following diagram illustrates the logical workflow for designing a validation strategy that incorporates these robustness checks.

Comparative Performance Data: Metrics and Outcomes

Evaluating the success of ancestral protein validation requires quantitative metrics. The table below summarizes key performance indicators from various experimental approaches, highlighting the connection between methodological rigor and functional confidence.

Experimental Method	Key Measurable Parameters	Typical Outcomes & Performance Indicators	Context of Use / Limitations
Phenotypic Rescue	Survival rate, growth rate, morphological scoring, behavioral metrics [105]	Quantitative rescue towards wild-type levels (e.g., >70% survival in lethal mutant). Success rate of ASR-derived proteins can be 50% or higher in optimized screens [106].	High biological relevance; highly dependent on choice of model organism and quality of mutant.
Pathway/Biosensor Assay	Reporter activity (luminescence/fluorescence), metabolite concentration, second messenger levels	Significant fold-change in output versus negative control (e.g., >5x background). Provides kinetic data.	Confirms specific molecular function within a network; may require sophisticated genetic tools.
Robustness Testing	Functional consistency score across ML, AltAll, and sampled variants [15]	Qualitative function preserved across variants despite quantitative variation in kinetics or stability [15].	Critical for establishing confidence in evolutionary conclusions; adds cost and complexity.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents & Solutions

Successful in vivo validation relies on a core set of reagents and tools. The following table details essential components for a typical validation pipeline.

Research Reagent / Solution	Critical Function in Validation	Example Application
Codon-Optimized Gene Synthesis	Ensures high expression of ancestral genes in heterologous host organisms.	Reliable production of ancestral protein in E. coli for purification or in eukaryotic cell lines.
Model Organism Mutants	Provides a null background for clean phenotypic rescue assays.	Using a Drosophila line with a knockout of the modern gene to test the function of the ancestral version.
Genetically Encoded Biosensors	Enables real-time, quantitative monitoring of signaling pathway activity in living cells.	Measuring calcium flux or cAMP production upon activation of a resurrected ancestral GPCR.
Validated Antibodies	Detects protein expression, localization, and post-translational modifications in vivo.	Confirming the ancestral protein is expressed and localizes to the correct subcellular compartment.
Advanced Behavioral Tracking	Provides objective, high-throughput quantification of complex phenotypes [105].	Precisely measuring restored motor function or circadian rhythm in animal models.

Robust in vivo validation of ancestral protein function is not achieved by a single experiment but through a convergent, multi-pronged strategy. By integrating the principles of verification, analytical validation, and biological validation, researchers can move beyond mere detection of activity to demonstrating meaningful function within the intricate landscape of a living cell or organism. Employing phenotypic rescue, quantitative biosensing, and—critically—rigorous robustness analyses against evolutionary uncertainty creates a compelling body of evidence. This comprehensive approach ensures that conclusions about the deep functional past of proteins are not only statistically inferred but also experimentally grounded in biological reality.

The functional validation of ancestral proteins presents a unique challenge to researchers. Unlike their modern counterparts, these ancient biomolecules cannot be studied within their native cellular contexts, making their reconstructed functions particularly vulnerable to experimental artifacts. The densely crowded intracellular environment, teeming with macromolecules that can influence protein stability, interactions, and activity, is nearly impossible to fully replicate in vitro [107]. Furthermore, ancestral sequence reconstruction itself carries inherent uncertainties, as the inferred sequences are statistical predictions that may contain errors [108]. It is within this challenging landscape that the multi-method mandate becomes essential. Relying on a single experimental readout to confirm protein function is a risky endeavor; instead, researchers must corroborate findings using orthogonal techniques—independent methods based on different physical or biological principles. This approach provides a robust defense against false positives and technical artifacts, ensuring that conclusions about ancestral protein function are not merely reflections of methodological limitations but genuine biological insights. This guide objectively compares the performance of key orthogonal techniques essential for validating ancestral protein functions in live-cell research.

A Comparative Analysis of Orthogonal Validation Methods

The following table summarizes the core techniques used for orthogonal validation, their key outputs, and their specific value in ancestral protein studies.

Table 1: Comparison of Key Orthogonal Techniques for Ancestral Protein Validation

Technique	Key Measured Output	Typical Experimental Readout	Key Advantage for Ancestral Proteins	Common Limitations
Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC)	Direct protein-protein interaction and subcellular localization	Fluorescence signal from reconstituted fluorophore in live cells [109] [110] [111]	Visualizes weak or transient interactions in relevant compartments [110]; high spatial resolution.	Irreversible complementation can yield false positives; requires careful control design [110] [111].
Co-Immunoprecipitation (Co-IP)	Direct protein-protein interaction within a complex	Immunoblot detection of co-precipitated binding partners	Confirms direct physical interaction; can be quantitative; validates BiFC interactions orthogonally.	Requires cell lysis, disrupting native context; may miss weak or transient interactions.
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) & in vitro Assays	Quantitative functional characterization (e.g., stability, kinetics)	Spectroscopic or enzymatic activity measurements of reconstructed proteins [112] [71] [108]	Provides direct, quantitative functional data on the ancestral protein itself [71] [108].	Removes the protein from its cellular context (e.g., crowding, chaperones) [107].
Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE)	Evolution of molecular functions under selective pressure	Sequencing of evolved variants with desired traits (e.g., new binding specificity) [112]	Tests evolutionary hypotheses and functional plasticity by "re-playing" evolution from ancestral nodes [112].	Highly specialized setup; primarily suited for probing evolutionary trajectories.

Experimental Protocols for Key Orthogonal Techniques

Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC) in Live Cells

BiFC is a powerful technique for visualizing protein-protein interactions in living cells, but it requires meticulous controls to be interpretable, especially in restricted compartments like chloroplasts where protein concentration artifacts are a concern [110].

Detailed Workflow:

• Construct Design: Fuse the proteins of interest (POIs) to non-fluorescent fragments (e.g., N-terminal and C-terminal) of a fluorescent protein like YFP. The MoBiFC toolkit is a modular system that simplifies this process for organelle-targeted proteins [110].
• Control Construction: This is critical. Generate at least two types of negative controls:
  • Mutant Interaction Partner: Fuse the FP fragment to a partner with a mutated interaction domain (e.g., ∆PTAC5 for the HSP21/PTAC5 interaction) [110].
  • Non-Interacting Protein: Fuse the FP fragment to a well-characterized, non-interacting protein localized to the same compartment (e.g., chloroplast-targeted mCHERRY) [110].
• Cell Transfection: Transfect cells with plasmids expressing the fusion proteins. Use weak promoters or low plasmid DNA to avoid over-expression, which can cause mislocalization and false positives [111].
• Incubation & Visualization: Incubate for sufficient time (often >8 hours) to allow for fluorophore reconstitution [111]. Image using an inverted fluorescence microscope. The fluorescence intensity is proportional to interaction strength [111].
• Ratiometric Quantification: Co-express a reference fluorescent protein (e.g., nucleo-cytoplasmic CFP) to normalize for transfection efficiency. The ratio of BiFC signal to reference signal (BiFC efficiency) allows for robust cross-comparison [110].

Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction (ASR) andin vitroFunctional Assays

ASR allows researchers to "resurrect" ancient proteins for direct biochemical characterization, providing a cornerstone for functional hypotheses [71] [108].

Detailed Workflow:

• Sequence Alignment & Phylogeny: Compile and align a multiple sequence alignment of modern protein sequences. Infer a phylogenetic tree.
• Ancestral Sequence Inference: Use maximum likelihood (ML) software (e.g., PAML, FastML) to compute the posterior probabilities of ancestral amino acids at each node of the tree [71] [108]. The sequence for a target ancestral node is reconstructed using the most probable residue at each site.
• Gene Synthesis & Protein Purification: The inferred ancestral sequence is synthesized and cloned into an expression vector. The recombinant protein is expressed in a system like E. coli and purified.
• in vitro Functional Assay: The purified protein is subjected to quantitative assays. For example:
  • Thermostability: Measured by Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC) or by monitoring circular dichroism or fluorescence during thermal denaturation [108].
  • Ligand Binding Affinity: Determined using Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) or surface plasmon resonance (SPR).
  • Catalytic Activity: For enzymes, kinetic parameters (Km, kcat) are determined using spectrophotometric assays [108].

Visualizing Experimental Workflows

The following diagrams illustrate the logical relationships and workflows for the orthogonal validation of ancestral proteins.

Workflow for Orthogonal Validation

BiFC Assay Principle and Controls

Research Reagent Solutions for Ancestral Protein Validation

A successful orthogonal validation strategy relies on a suite of reliable research reagents. The table below details essential materials and their functions.

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents for Orthogonal Validation Experiments

Reagent / Solution	Primary Function	Key Considerations for Ancestral Protein Studies
Modular Cloning Systems (e.g., MoClo, MoBiFC)	Streamlines assembly of fusion protein constructs for BiFC and other assays [110].	Accelerates testing of multiple fusion orientations (N/C-terminal fusions), which is crucial for optimizing signal in compartment-specific assays [110].
Fluorescent Protein Fragments (e.g., nYFP/cYFP split at residue 155/175)	Non-fluorescent fragments that reconstitute a fluorescent complex upon protein interaction [110] [111].	The choice of split site affects complementation efficiency and background noise. The 174/175 YFP split is highly efficient for chloroplast work [110].
Validated Negative Control Constructs	Distinguish specific interactions from non-specific complementation [110] [111].	Must include mutated interaction partners (e.g., ∆PTAC5) and/or non-interacting proteins targeted to the same compartment (e.g., mCHERRY) [110].
Reference Fluorescent Proteins (e.g., CFP)	Enables ratiometric quantification and normalizes for transfection efficiency [110].	Should have a distinct emission spectrum from the reconstituted BiFC signal and be expressed from the same construct for consistent co-expression [110].
PAML/FastML Software	Infers ancestral sequences using maximum likelihood from a multiple sequence alignment [71] [108].	The accuracy of the entire workflow depends on this step. Choice of substitution model and handling of gapped sites are critical [108].
Epitope Tags (e.g., 3xFLAG, 3xHA)	Allows immunoblot detection and purification of fusion proteins [110].	Tags (e.g., 3FLAGnYFP, cYFP3HA) must be validated to ensure they do not interfere with protein interaction or localization [110].
Multi-enzyme Digest Assay Kits	Provides a rapid in vitro estimate of protein digestibility/accessibility as a functional proxy [113].	Can correlate with in vivo digestibility, but requires separate calibration for different protein types (e.g., native vs. processed) [113].

The journey to confidently characterize an ancestral protein's function is one of triangulation. No single method, no matter how sophisticated, can provide definitive proof on its own. The path forward requires a multi-method mandate, where techniques like BiFC, Co-IP, and in vitro functional assays are not seen as alternatives but as essential, complementary pieces of the same puzzle. BiFC offers a visual snapshot of interactions in a living context, Co-IP provides biochemical confirmation of these complexes, and in vitro assays deliver quantitative, mechanistic understanding of the protein's intrinsic properties. By integrating these orthogonal lines of evidence, researchers can move beyond methodological artifacts and build a compelling, reproducible case for the functional characteristics of ancient proteins, ultimately shedding light on the fundamental evolutionary processes that have shaped modern biology.

The reconstruction and functional characterization of ancestral proteins provides a powerful window into molecular evolution, enabling researchers to test hypotheses about the evolutionary trajectories that shaped modern protein functions. This approach has illuminated evolutionary histories across diverse protein families, including Dicer helicases, BCL-2 family regulators, and metabolic enzymes like methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR). However, the growing adoption of ancestral protein reconstruction in functional studies necessitates a standardized framework for systematic benchmarking to ensure robust, comparable, and biologically meaningful conclusions. A critical challenge lies in the inherent uncertainties of both computational reconstruction and functional interpretation, where methodological choices can significantly influence downstream biological insights.

The relationship between orthology prediction accuracy and functional inference represents a foundational consideration for ancestral protein studies. Orthology determination establishes the evolutionary relationships between genes in different species that originated from a common ancestral gene through speciation events, and the accuracy of this process directly impacts ancestral sequence reconstruction. Different orthology inference methods can yield substantially different orthologous groups despite similar large-scale performance metrics [114]. This methodological diversity extends to functional characterization, where studies have demonstrated that selective constraints can vary significantly between phylogenetic lineages, meaning that substitutions accepted in orthologs may not be tolerated in the human protein, challenging assumptions about functional conservation [115]. This review establishes a comprehensive comparative framework that integrates computational orthology assessment, ancestral reconstruction methodologies, and experimental validation strategies to advance the rigorous benchmarking of ancestral protein properties.

Benchmarking Orthology Inference Methods for Evolutionary Studies

Performance Metrics and Methodological Trade-offs

Accurate inference of orthologous relationships forms the critical foundation for reconstructing evolutionary histories. Multiple orthology identification methods have been developed, each with distinct algorithmic approaches and performance characteristics that create a fundamental sensitivity/selectivity trade-off. Generally, methods that produce smaller, more selective orthologous groups (e.g., InParanoid, Best Bidirectional Hits) achieve higher functional similarity per orthologous pair but at the cost of reduced sensitivity in detecting more distant relationships. Conversely, methods that generate larger, more inclusive groups (e.g., KOG, OrthoMCL) capture more relationships but with lower average functional conservation per pair [116].

The performance of these methods can be quantified using various biological metrics. When assessing conservation of gene order, Best Bidirectional Hits (BBH), InParanoid (INP), and OrthoMCL (MCL) demonstrate superior performance, while methods like PhyloGenetic Tree (PGT) and Z1H show significantly lower conservation scores (<0.02) despite their larger proteome coverage [116]. For conservation of protein-protein interactions, BBH achieves the highest accuracy, though INP and MCL provide better balance between accuracy and proteome coverage [116]. These trade-offs highlight the importance of selecting orthology inference methods based on specific research goals rather than assuming universal superiority of any single approach.

Comparative Analysis of Orthology Inference Tools

Table 1: Comparison of Orthology Inference Methods and Their Characteristics

Tool/Dataset	Prediction Type	Core Algorithm	Strengths	Considerations for Ancestral Reconstruction
OrthoFinder	De novo	Sequence similarity (DIAMOND/BLAST) + MCL clustering	Phylogenetic distance-normalized bit-score; comprehensive	Balanced performance; widely adopted
Broccoli	De novo	K-mer preclustering + DIAMOND + FastTree2 + LPA	Extremely fast on large datasets; machine learning classification	Suitable for large-scale phylogenetic analyses
SonicParanoid	De novo	MMseqs2 + InParanoid algorithm + MCL	Optimized for speed; sensitive mode for distant species	Useful for divergent eukaryotic lineages
SwiftOrtho	De novo	BLAST + OrthoMCL approach + MCL	Optimized for memory usage on large-scale data	Efficient for big datasets with computational constraints
eggNOG	Database	Manual curation + HMM profiles	Manual curation; functional annotations	Pre-computed; includes functional inferences
Ancestral Panther	Database	Gene family trees from PANTHER + HMMs	Explicit ancestral genome reconstructions	Directly provides ancestral reconstructions

Substantial differences exist between orthologous groups generated by different inference approaches, creating significant implications for downstream evolutionary analyses. Counterintuitively, despite similar large-scale evaluation performance, the obtained orthologous groups can differ vastly from one another [114]. These differences propagate through analyses, affecting inferences about last eukaryotic common ancestor (LECA) gene content, patterns of gene loss, and phylogenetic profile similarity. When evaluating methods for their ability to recapitulate known eukaryotic evolutionary patterns, most methods reconstruct a large LECA with substantial subsequent gene loss and can reasonably predict interacting proteins through phylogenetic co-occurrence [114]. However, the derived orthologous groups consistently show imperfect overlap with manually curated gold standards, emphasizing the need for careful method selection tailored to specific phylogenetic contexts and research questions.

Methodological Framework for Ancestral Protein Reconstruction

Integrated Computational-Experimental Workflow

A robust ancestral protein reconstruction pipeline integrates multiple computational and experimental stages, each requiring specific methodological considerations. The foundational workflow begins with orthology inference to establish evolutionary relationships, followed by multiple sequence alignment of orthologous sequences, phylogenetic tree inference, ancestral sequence reconstruction at specific nodes of interest, and finally functional characterization through experimental or computational means [71].

High-throughput protocols have been developed that integrate ancestral sequence reconstruction with structural homology modeling and structure-based molecular affinity prediction to characterize historical changes across large protein families [71]. These scalable approaches complement more laboratory-intensive procedures by generating contextual information that guides detailed experiments. Key steps requiring careful attention include multiple sequence alignment quality (potential source of error), phylogenetic tree reconstruction methods, and ancestral state prediction algorithms. Computational efficiency can be balanced against scientific rigor through selective use of approximate algorithms for specific analysis stages [71].

Ancestral Reconstruction Validation Strategies

Ancestral protein reconstruction generates hypothetical protein sequences that serve as reasonable approximations of ancient proteins, enabling explicit testing of hypotheses about molecular evolution [4]. The inherent uncertainty in sequence predictions and limited statistical power in single gene sequences present methodological limitations, yet this approach remains powerful for understanding evolutionary trajectories [4]. Validation strategies include:

• Phylogenetic consistency: Assessing whether reconstructed sequences fit expected evolutionary patterns
• Structural plausibility: Evaluating whether reconstructed sequences fold into stable, functional structures
• Experimental complementation: Testing whether ancestral proteins can replace modern counterparts in functional assays
• Historical fidelity: Comparing reconstructed proteins to known functional changes in the evolutionary record

For example, ancestral reconstruction of Dicer's helicase domain revealed an ancient gene duplication event that split into two major Dicer clades (AncD1 and AncD2), consistent with previous analyses of full-length Dicer, validating that the HEL-DUF region contained sufficient phylogenetic signal to recapitulate broad evolutionary patterns [4].

Experimental Paradigms for Functional Benchmarking

Quantitative Functional Assays for Ancestral Proteins

Rigorous benchmarking of ancestral protein properties requires quantitative functional assays that enable direct comparison with modern orthologs and engineered mutants. Yeast complementation assays provide a powerful cell-based system for evaluating protein function, as demonstrated in studies of human methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) variants [115]. This approach involves deleting the endogenous ortholog in yeast and expressing the ancestral or modern protein of interest to assess functional complementation under selective conditions.

High-throughput continuous evolution systems represent another innovative experimental paradigm. Phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE) enables rapid selection of proteins with altered specificities by linking desired molecular functions to phage propagation [35]. This approach has been successfully applied to ancestral BCL-2 family proteins to select for historical protein-protein interaction specificities, allowing researchers to "replay" evolution from different starting points [35]. The system can simultaneously select for and against particular PPIs, creating strong selective pressures that mimic historical evolution.

Biochemical characterization provides essential quantitative metrics for comparing ancestral and modern proteins. For example, in studying the evolution of Dicer's helicase domain, researchers measured ATP hydrolysis kinetics, dsRNA binding affinity, and Michaelis constants to trace the evolutionary trajectory of ATPase function [4]. Such detailed biochemical profiling enables rigorous comparison of ancestral and modern protein functionalities beyond simple binary functional assessments.

Benchmarking Protein-Protein Interaction Specificity

Protein-protein interaction specificity represents a critical functional dimension for benchmarking ancestral proteins, particularly for signaling molecules and transcriptional regulators. The BCL-2 family provides an exemplary system where ancestral reconstruction and continuous evolution have been combined to understand the evolution of interaction specificities [35].

Table 2: Experimental Approaches for Benchmarking Ancestral Protein Function

Method Category	Specific Techniques	Measured Parameters	Applications in Ancestral Studies
Cell-Based Complementation	Yeast complementation assays; Growth-based selection	Complementation efficiency; IC50 values; Metabolic flux	MTHFR functional analysis; Enzyme activity benchmarking
Continuous Evolution	Phage-assisted continuous evolution (PACE)	Mutation trajectories; Specificity changes; Fitness landscapes	BCL-2 family specificity evolution; Historical trajectory replay
Biochemical Kinetics	Enzyme activity assays; Binding measurements	KM, kcat values; Binding constants (KD); Specificity constants	Dicer ATPase evolution; Ligand binding affinity reconstruction
Interaction Specificity	Co-immunoprecipitation; Y2H; SPR	Interaction specificity; Binding affinity; Selectivity indices	BCL-2-co-regulator interactions; Signaling complex evolution
Structural Analysis	X-ray crystallography; Cryo-EM; NMR	Active site geometry; Conformational dynamics; Interaction interfaces	Dicer helicase domain; Ancestral ligand-binding proteins

The PACE system for BCL-2 proteins enables high-throughput screening of interaction specificities by linking transcription of the gene III phage propagation factor to the desired PPI [35]. This system allows simultaneous positive selection for desired interactions and negative selection against undesirable interactions through an optimized two-hybrid format in bacterial cells. The resulting evolutionary trajectories can be sequenced to identify mutational pathways, enabling direct comparison with historical evolutionary records.

Signaling Pathway Reconstruction and Analysis

Evolution of Apoptotic Regulation Through BCL-2 Family Proteins

The BCL-2 protein family represents a compelling system for benchmarking ancestral protein properties within a well-characterized signaling pathway. These proteins are central regulators of apoptosis that originated approximately 800 million years ago and have diversified greatly in both sequence and function throughout metazoan evolution [35]. The family includes both pro-apoptotic (e.g., BID, NOXA) and anti-apoptotic (e.g., BCL-2, MCL-1) members that engage in a complex network of protein-protein interactions determining cellular fate.

Interaction specificity represents a key functional difference between BCL-2 family classes: the MCL-1 class strongly binds both BID and NOXA coregulators, while the BCL-2 class strongly binds BID but not NOXA [35]. Despite sharing an ancient evolutionary origin and structural similarity (using the same binding cleft for interactions), these classes display only about 20% sequence identity, presenting an ideal system for investigating how sequence changes alter interaction specificities while maintaining structural integrity.

Evolution of Antiviral Defense Mechanisms

The Dicer protein family illustrates the evolution of antiviral defense mechanisms across animal lineages. Invertebrate Dicers typically possess helicase domains capable of ATP hydrolysis that is stimulated by dsRNA, enabling them to function in antiviral defense [4]. In contrast, human Dicer lacks significant ATPase activity and plays a muted role in antiviral defense, which is largely handled by RIG-I-like receptors (RLRs) instead [4].

Ancestral reconstruction of Dicer's helicase domain revealed that the ancestral animal Dicer possessed ATPase function that was stimulated by dsRNA, similar to extant invertebrate Dicers [4]. The evolutionary trajectory shows progressive loss of this function: the deuterostome Dicer-1 ancestor retained reduced ATPase activity, while the vertebrate Dicer-1 ancestor lost detectable ATPase function entirely [4]. This functional loss correlated with reduced dsRNA affinity and occurred due to diminished ATP affinity involving motifs distant from the active site, suggesting that the emergence of specialized RLRs may have allowed or actively driven the loss of ATPase function in vertebrate Dicer.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Methods

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Methods for Ancestral Protein Studies

Category	Specific Resources	Applications	Technical Considerations
Orthology Databases	eggNOG; OrthoDB; TreeFam; Ancestral Panther	Orthology inference; Functional annotation	Taxonomic coverage varies; Differ in curation approaches
Sequence Analysis	HMMER; DIAMOND; BLAST; Clustal Omega; MAFFT	Multiple sequence alignment; Homology detection	Alignment accuracy critical for reconstruction
Phylogenetic Tools	FastTree; RAxML; MrBayes; BEAST	Tree inference; Ancestral reconstruction	Model selection impacts accuracy; Computational requirements vary
Structural Modeling	MODELLER; I-TASSER; AlphaFold2; Rosetta	Homology modeling; Ab initio prediction	Accuracy depends on template availability
Functional Assays	Yeast complementation; PACE; SPR; ITC	Functional characterization; Specificity profiling	Throughput and quantitative accuracy trade-offs
Expression Systems	E. coli; Yeast; Baculovirus; Cell-free	Protein production for characterization	Optimization needed for different ancestral proteins

Specialized Methodologies for Evolutionary Functional Analysis

Ancestral sequence reconstruction platforms like FastML and BAli-Phy provide specialized computational tools for inferring ancestral sequences, offering probabilistic reconstruction methods that account for uncertainty in alignments and phylogenies [71]. These tools enable researchers to generate multiple possible ancestral sequences weighted by probability, which can be synthesized and tested experimentally to evaluate functional hypotheses.

Continuous evolution technologies like PACE represent specialized methodologies for experimental evolutionary studies. The PACE system for BCL-2 proteins involves specific reagent configurations: (1) an accessory plasmid that expresses the protein-protein interaction bait, (2) a selection phage that encodes the ancestral protein variant fused to the ω subunit of RNA polymerase, and (3) a host cells that contain a mutagenesis plasmid for continuous mutation generation [35]. This integrated system enables directed evolution under strong selective pressures that can be tuned to match historical functional transitions.

Energy profile comparison methods offer innovative computational approaches for structural and evolutionary analysis. Methods like GraSR (Graph-based protein Structure Representation) use knowledge-based potentials and graph neural networks to generate energy profiles that facilitate rapid protein comparison without structural alignment [117]. These approaches can classify proteins across taxonomic levels and predict evolutionary relationships even among distantly related proteins in the "twilight zone" of sequence similarity (20-35% identity) [117] [118].

Systematic benchmarking of ancestral protein properties against modern orthologs and mutants requires integration of robust orthology assessment, phylogenetic reconstruction, and quantitative functional characterization. The comparative framework presented here highlights several critical principles: (1) orthology method selection significantly impacts evolutionary inferences and should be tailored to specific research questions; (2) ancestral reconstruction approaches must account for phylogenetic uncertainty and functional context; (3) experimental benchmarking requires quantitative assays that enable direct functional comparison across evolutionary time.

The emerging evidence from diverse protein families suggests that evolutionary outcomes reflect complex interactions between chance, contingency, and necessity. Experimental evolution of ancestral BCL-2 proteins demonstrated that contingency generated over long historical timescales steadily erased necessity and overwhelmed chance as the primary cause of acquired sequence variation [35]. This path dependence emphasizes the importance of historical context in shaping modern protein functions and underscores the value of ancestral protein studies for deciphering these complex evolutionary trajectories.

As ancestral protein research continues to mature, standardized benchmarking approaches will be essential for generating comparable, reproducible insights across different protein families and evolutionary contexts. The integrated computational and experimental framework outlined here provides a foundation for these efforts, enabling researchers to rigorously test hypotheses about protein evolution while accounting for methodological uncertainties and biological complexities inherent in reconstructing deep evolutionary history.

The central dogma of protein science—that sequence dictates structure, which in turn determines function—has long guided biological research [119]. However, a vast gap exists between the millions of known protein sequences and the relatively few with experimentally solved structures [119]. Computational tools, especially artificial intelligence (AI) like AlphaFold2, have dramatically accelerated structure prediction, but a critical question remains: how accurately do these predicted models, and even static experimental structures, represent the dynamic, functional state of a biomolecule within a living cell (in vivo)? This guide compares the key methods for validating structural predictions, focusing on how they bridge the gap between computational models and biological function, a process essential for applications in drug development and disease research.

---

Comparative Analysis of Structural Validation Methods

The table below summarizes the core methodologies for validating and leveraging structural predictions.

Method Category	Key Example(s)	Primary Data	Key Metric(s)	Functional Insight
Experimental Structure Probing	tRNA structure-seq [120]	In vivo DMS reactivity (mutation rates)	Nucleotide-resolution reactivity profiles	Directly reveals RNA folding, dynamics, and modifications in living cells under stress.
Computational Model Validation	AlphaFold2 [121]	Global Distance Test (GDT_TS)	GDT_TS score (e.g., >90 in CASP14) [121]	Benchmarks overall fold accuracy against ground-truth experimental structures.
In Vivo Interaction Prediction	PrismNet [122]	In vivo RNA structure (icSHAPE) & RBP binding (CLIP-seq)	Prediction accuracy of dynamic RBP binding sites	Links cell-type-specific RNA structural changes to protein-RNA interactions.
Ancestral Reconstruction	Dicer Helicase Study [4]	Resurrected ancestral protein sequences	Biochemical assays (e.g., ATPase activity, dsRNA affinity)	Tests evolutionary hypotheses about how structural changes led to functional shifts.
AI for Variant Interpretation	Structure-based Predictors (e.g., AlphaMissense) [123]	Protein tertiary structure & evolutionary data	Pathogenicity likelihood scores	Interprets the functional impact of genetic variants by analyzing their structural context.

---

Detailed Experimental Protocols

tRNA Structure-Seq forIn VivoRNA Structurome

This protocol determines the in vivo secondary structure of highly modified and structured RNAs, like tRNA [120].

• Step 1: In Vivo Probing. Treat living cells with dimethyl sulfate (DMS), a membrane-permeant chemical that methylates accessible adenosine (N1), cytosine (N3), and guanosine (N7) nucleotides.
• Step 2: Mutational Profiling (MaP). Use an ultra-processive reverse transcriptase (Marathon RT) with Mn2+ to read through DMS-modified and naturally modified sites. This induces nucleotide mis-incorporations in the cDNA, recording multiple modifications in a single molecule.
• Step 3: Library Preparation & Sequencing. Execute two key size-selection steps: first for full-length tRNA, and later for full-length cDNAs. This ensures long, mappable sequences for analysis.
• Step 4: Data Analysis. Process sequencing data with ShapeMapper2 to calculate mutation rates. High mutation rates at a nucleotide indicate DMS reactivity, which reports on flexible, single-stranded regions. These reactivity data serve as experimental restraints to improve the accuracy of RNA structure prediction algorithms from ~80% to ~95% [120].

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) for Functional Validation

APR tests evolutionary hypotheses about protein function by resurrecting ancient proteins and characterizing them biochemically [4].

• Step 1: Phylogenetic Analysis. Collect a multiple sequence alignment (MSA) of the protein family of interest (e.g., Dicer's helicase domain). Infer a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree.
• Step 2: Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction. Compute the most probable amino acid sequences at key ancestral nodes of the evolutionary tree (e.g., AncD1D2, the ancestor of all animal Dicers).
• Step 3: Protein Synthesis & Purification. Synthesize genes encoding the ancestral sequences and express and purify the proteins using a standard heterologous system (e.g., E. coli).
• Step 4: Biochemical Assays. Measure relevant biochemical activities to compare ancestral and modern functions. For Dicer, this included:
  • ATPase Activity: Quantifying ATP hydrolysis in the presence and absence of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) to determine functional capability [4].
  • dsRNA Binding Affinity: Using techniques like surface plasmon resonance (SPR) or electrophoretic mobility shift assays (EMSA) to measure KM and understand allosteric coupling [4].

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction Workflow

---

The Scientist's Toolkit: Research Reagent Solutions

Tool / Reagent	Function in Validation
Dimethyl Sulfate (DMS)	Cell-permeant chemical probe that methylates accessible RNA bases in vivo, revealing nucleotide flexibility [120].
Marathon RT / Mn2+	Ultra-processive reverse transcriptase used in Mutational Profiling (MaP) to detect modifications as cDNA mutations, not stops [120].
icSHAPE Reagents	Chemicals that react with flexible RNA nucleotides in vivo, allowing transcriptome-wide profiling of RNA secondary structure [122].
CLIP-seq	Identifies the exact binding sites of RNA-binding proteins (RBPs) on transcripts in a cellular context, providing functional interaction data [122].
AlphaFold2 & RoseTTAFold	Deep learning systems that predict protein tertiary structure from amino acid sequence with high accuracy [124] [121].
Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction	Computational method to infer the sequences of ancient proteins, enabling direct experimental test of functional evolution [4].

tRNA Structure-Seq Workflow

---

Key Insights for Research and Development

For researchers and drug development professionals, the choice of validation strategy is paramount.

• For Assessing In Vivo Dynamics: Techniques like tRNA structure-seq and PrismNet are indispensable. They move beyond static snapshots, revealing how structures change under stress (e.g., heat shock) or across different cell types, and directly link these changes to functional interactions with proteins [120] [122]. This is critical for understanding mechanisms in disease states.
• For Interpreting Genetic Variants: Structure-based AI predictors (e.g., AlphaMissense) are invaluable. By placing a variant of uncertain significance (VUS) into a predicted 3D structural context, they can assess whether it is likely to disrupt protein stability or active sites, providing evidence for its pathogenicity [123].
• For Testing Evolutionary Hypotheses: Ancestral protein reconstruction is a powerful functional validation tool. The Dicer case study proves that function can be lost through subtle, long-range structural effects that reduce cofactor affinity, not just through active-site mutations [4]. Resurrecting ancestral functions can reveal allosteric sites for drug targeting.

The integration of these methods—using in vivo probing to ground-truth computational models, and ancestral biochemistry to test evolutionary hypotheses—creates a powerful framework for ensuring that structural predictions are not just accurate, but biologically meaningful.

The accurate determination of ancestral protein functions is a cornerstone of evolutionary molecular biology, providing critical insights into the functional landscape of ancient organisms and the evolutionary trajectories of modern proteins. Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) has emerged as a powerful technique for inferring the sequences and properties of ancient proteins, yet a significant challenge remains in validating these functional predictions. This guide explores the innovative integration of large-scale structural clustering methodologies, empowered by machine learning-based protein structure prediction, as a robust framework for validating hypotheses about ancestral protein function. By applying structural phylogenetics to the vast dataset of predicted protein structures, researchers can now place resurrected ancestral proteins within a comprehensive structural context, testing functional predictions against the empirical backdrop of the known protein universe. This approach is particularly valuable for functional inference in cases where sequence-based homology is ambiguous, offering a powerful complementary tool for confirming or challenging conclusions drawn from experimental characterization of resurrected ancestral proteins.

Comparative Performance Analysis: Ancestral Reconstruction & Structural Clustering

Core Methodologies and Applications

Table 1: Comparison of Key Protein Analysis Methodologies

Methodology	Core Function	Primary Data Input	Key Output	Scale Demonstrated	Application in Evolutionary Studies
Ancestral Protein Reconstruction (APR) [125] [15] [4]	Infers ancient protein sequences and properties	Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) of extant proteins	Plausible ancestral sequences & biochemical functions	Single protein families	Directly tests hypotheses about ancient protein function and environmental adaptation [125].
Structural Clustering (e.g., Foldseek cluster) [126] [127]	Groups proteins by 3D structural similarity	Protein 3D structures (experimental or predicted)	Clusters of structurally similar proteins	214 million structures (AlphaFold DB)	Identifies remote homology and novel folds; maps evolutionary relationships beyond sequence similarity [126].
Protein Age Estimation (e.g., ProteinHistorian) [128]	Assigns phylogenetic "age" to proteins	Databases of evolutionary relationships & species trees	Phylogenetic age profiles for proteomes	32 eukaryotic genomes	Reveals enrichment of protein ages in biological processes, disease associations, and functional classes [128].

Quantitative Experimental Data from Key Studies

Table 2: Experimental Data from Ancestral Protein and Structural Clustering Studies

Study Focus	Proteins Analyzed	Key Measured Parameters	Principal Quantitative Findings	Implications for Functional Validation
pH Stability of Ancestral Proteins [125]	Ancestral NDKs & uS8s; extant homologs	Unfolding midpoint temperature (Tm) at pH 5.0, 7.0, 9.0	Ancestral NDKs maintained high Tm at pH 9.0 (101-106°C), similar to pH 7.0, unlike many extant neutralophiles [125].	Suggests ancestral organisms thrived in alkaline environments; demonstrates robustness of ancestral protein functions.
Robustness of APR to Uncertainty [15]	Ancestral proteins from 3 domain families	Functional activity metrics under sequence variations	Qualitative functional conclusions were robust even when scores of alternate amino acids were incorporated via the "AltAll" method [15].	Highlights functional robustness of inferred ancestral states, validating APR against statistical uncertainty.
ATPase Function Loss in Dicer Evolution [4]	Reconstructed Dicer helicase domains from key ancestors	ATP hydrolysis rates (e.g., KM for ATP)	Vertebrate Dicer-1 ancestor showed undetectable ATPase activity, a loss traced to reduced dsRNA affinity impacting ATP affinity [4].	Traces a major functional shift in vertebrate evolution, validated by ancestral protein biochemistry.
Scale of Structural Clustering [126] [127]	214 million predicted structures (AlphaFold DB)	Number of non-singleton structural clusters, annotation coverage	Identified 2.30 million structural clusters; 31% (711,705 clusters) lack annotation, representing novel structural space [126].	Provides a universe of structural data to contextualize and validate predicted ancestral protein structures.

Experimental Protocols for Key Methodologies

Protocol for Ancestral Protein Reconstruction and Functional Validation

The following workflow outlines the core steps for reconstructing and validating ancestral proteins, a method central to the studies cited in this guide [125] [15] [4].

1. Sequence Collection and Curation:

• Gather a diverse set of extant protein sequences for the target protein family from public databases (e.g., UniProt) [4].
• The sequence set should adequately represent the phylogenetic breadth of the clade of interest to ensure a robust reconstruction.

2. Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Inference:

• Align the collected sequences using tools such as MUSCLE or MAFFT to create a high-quality Multiple Sequence Alignment (MSA) [4].
• Using this MSA, infer a phylogenetic tree (typically using Maximum Likelihood methods) that represents the evolutionary relationships among the sequences [4].

3. Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction:

• Apply statistical models (e.g., empirical Bayesian) to the phylogeny and MSA to infer the most probable amino acid sequences at internal nodes of interest (e.g., the last common ancestor of a major clade) [15] [4].
• Critical Step - Accounting for Uncertainty: The Maximum Likelihood (ML) sequence is a single best estimate, but it contains statistical uncertainty. It is crucial to identify ambiguously reconstructed sites (where the posterior probability of the ML state is <1.0). Functional robustness can be tested by creating and characterizing variants like the "AltAll" sequence, which incorporates all plausible alternative amino acids at these ambiguous sites into a single protein [15].

4. Gene Synthesis and Protein Expression:

• The inferred ancestral DNA sequence is synthesized de novo, codon-optimized for expression in a suitable host system (e.g., E. coli) [125] [4].
• The protein is expressed and purified using standard chromatographic methods.

5. Experimental Functional Characterization:

• Thermal Stability: Assessed by techniques like Circular Dichroism (CD) spectroscopy, monitoring unfolding as a function of temperature and/or pH to determine the midpoint unfolding temperature (Tm), as performed for ancestral NDKs [125].
• Enzymatic Activity: For enzymes, classic biochemical assays are used to determine kinetic parameters (e.g., KM, kcat). This was key in tracing the loss of ATPase activity in vertebrate Dicer ancestors [4].
• Ligand/Binding Partner Interaction: Use Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) or Isothermal Titration Calorimetry (ITC) to quantify binding affinities, which explained the mechanistic basis for lost ATPase function (reduced dsRNA affinity) [4].

Protocol for Large-Scale Structural Clustering and Analysis

This protocol describes the method used to cluster the AlphaFold database, providing a framework for contextualizing ancestral structures [126].

1. Data Acquisition and Pre-processing:

• Obtain a set of protein structures, which can be experimentally determined (from the PDB) or computationally predicted (e.g., from the AlphaFold Database) [126].
• To manage computational scale, an initial pre-clustering step at the sequence level (e.g., using MMseqs2 at 50% sequence identity) can be performed to reduce redundancy [126].

2. Representative Selection and Structural Clustering:

• From each sequence-based cluster, select the structure with the highest predicted confidence (e.g., pLDDT score in AlphaFold) as a representative [126].
• Use a highly efficient structural alignment and clustering algorithm like Foldseek cluster to group representative structures based on 3D similarity. This tool uses a 3Di structural alphabet to accelerate comparisons by several orders of magnitude compared to traditional methods [126].

3. Cluster Analysis and Annotation:

• Analyze the resulting clusters for consistency and functional coherence using metrics like median Local Distance Difference Test (LDDT) and Template Modeling (TM)-score [126].
• Annotate clusters by comparing them to known structures in the PDB and domain families in databases like Pfam to identify clusters of unknown function ("dark clusters") [126].

4. Integration with Ancestral Proteins:

• Predict the 3D structure of a resurrected ancestral protein using AlphaFold2 or a similar tool.
• Use Foldseek to search against the pre-clustered structural database to identify which cluster the ancestral protein belongs to and its structural neighbors.
• This placement can reveal remote homologies and functional links not apparent from sequence alone, providing independent validation for hypothesized functions [126].

Table 3: Key Reagents and Computational Tools for Ancestral Protein and Structural Studies

Tool/Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Primary Function	Relevance to Validation
Computational Prediction & Analysis	AlphaFold2/DB [126], Foldseek cluster [126], MMseqs2 [126]	Predicts protein structures and clusters them at scale.	Provides the structural universe for contextualizing and validating ancestral protein models.
Phylogenetic Analysis	Phylogenetic inference software (e.g., IQ-TREE), Ancestral sequence reconstruction tools (e.g., codeml in PAML)	Infers evolutionary history and reconstructs ancestral states.	The foundational step for generating hypotheses about ancient protein sequences.
Biochemical Assay Reagents	Nucleotides (ATP, NTPs) for enzyme kinetics [4], Buffers for pH stability profiling [125], dsRNA substrates [4]	Measures enzymatic activity, ligand binding, and structural stability.	Provides the experimental data for quantifying the function of resurrected ancestral proteins.
Structural Biology & Biophysics	Circular Dichroism (CD) Spectrometer [125], Surface Plasmon Resonance (SPR) instruments	Measures protein secondary structure, thermal stability, and biomolecular interactions.	Key for characterizing the biophysical properties of ancestral proteins and comparing them to extant homologs.
Protein Family & Age Databases	Pfam [126], ECOD [126], ProteinHistorian [128]	Annotates protein domains, evolutionary relationships, and phylogenetic age.	Allows researchers to determine the evolutionary context and novelty of an ancestral protein.

The journey from identifying a potential therapeutic target to validating it for clinical application is a complex, multi-stage process. This pathway is particularly nuanced when applied to the field of ancestral protein research, where proteins resurrected from deep evolutionary history are investigated for their therapeutic potential. Target validation fundamentally aims to demonstrate that a biological target plays a key role in a disease pathway and that modulating its activity will provide a therapeutic benefit with an acceptable safety profile. As the GOT-IT working group emphasizes, robust target assessment is critical for de-risking drug development and facilitating successful academia-industry translation [129]. In ancestral protein research, this validation process presents unique challenges and opportunities. The historical divergence of protein functions, as revealed through ancestral reconstruction studies, means that validating their modern therapeutic application requires specialized interpretation of laboratory data within a clinical context. This guide compares the key methodologies and experimental approaches used in this validation pipeline, providing a framework for researchers to assess the potential of novel targets, including those derived from ancestral proteins.

Comparative Analysis of Key Target Validation Methods

The following table summarizes the core experimental approaches used for therapeutic target validation, their key outputs, and their relative advantages and limitations. This comparison is essential for selecting the appropriate methodology based on the validation stage and target class.

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Key Target Validation Methodologies

Methodology	Key Measurable Outputs	Key Advantages	Inherent Limitations
Functional Genomic Modulation (e.g., siRNA) [130]	- mRNA knockdown efficiency (qPCR)- Protein level reduction (Western blot)- Phenotypic readouts (e.g., cell viability, apoptosis)	- Mimics therapeutic inhibition without a drug- High-throughput capability- Does not require prior structural knowledge	- Incomplete knockdown can leave residual function- Off-target effects can confound results- Phenotype may exaggerate full target inhibition
Base Editing [131]	- Editing efficiency at target base (NGS)- Protein restoration (immunoassay)- Bystander edit rate (NGS)	- High precision and efficiency for point mutations- Enables endogenous mutation correction in relevant models- Can model specific human disease variants	- Potential for off-target editing- Byster editing can complicate interpretation- Delivery challenges in vivo
Computational Prediction (e.g., Tensor Factorization, TRESOR) [132] [133]	- Disease-gene link probability score- Recall@Rank (e.g., Recall@200)- Area Under Curve (AUC) for efficacy	- Integrates massive, heterogeneous datasets- Prospective predictive power for novel targets- Applicable to diseases with few known targets	- Predictions are probabilistic and require experimental confirmation- Performance depends on training data quality and completeness
Ancestral Protein Reconstruction & Evolution [112] [134]	- Historical mutation effects on function- Quantification of evolutionary contingency and chance- Altered binding specificity or catalytic activity	- Provides causal understanding of historical functional shifts- Identifies critical functional residues	- Requires robust phylogenetic inference- Resurrected protein behavior may not fully replicate ancient context

Detailed Experimental Protocols for Core Validation Techniques

In Vitro Base Editing Validation for Target Rescue

This protocol, adapted from a study validating USH2A gene targets, details the steps to empirically test the efficiency and specificity of a base editor for correcting a pathogenic point mutation [131].

• Guide RNA (gRNA) Design and Cloning: Design multiple gRNAs flanking the target pathogenic single-nucleotide variant (SNV) to evaluate different spacer sequences and editing windows. Clone gRNA expression cassettes into a plasmid containing the base editor (ABE or CBE).
• Target Delivery: Co-transfect the base editor-gRNA plasmid along with a plasmid containing the mutant target genomic locus (e.g., a fragment of the USH2A gene with the c.11864G>A mutation) into a relevant mammalian cell line (e.g., HEK293T).
• Measurement of Editing Efficiency: Harvest cells 72 hours post-transfection. Extract genomic DNA and perform PCR amplification of the target region. Quantify base editing efficiency using next-generation sequencing (NGS) of the amplicons. Analyze the percentage of reads with the intended base conversion and the frequency of bystander edits at nearby bases.
• Functional Protein Assay: For a successful edit that converts a nonsense to a sense codon (as in USH2A p.Trp3955*), assess functional protein rescue using a Western blot or immunofluorescence staining for the full-length protein in a cell line model.
• In Vivo Validation (Mouse Model): Package the most efficient base editor-gRNA combination from in vitro screening into a delivery vector such as adeno-associated virus (AAV9). Administer the AAV9 editor system to a humanized knock-in mouse model harboring the orthologous human mutation. Quantify editing efficiency in target tissues (e.g., retina) via NGS and confirm protein restoration via immunohistochemistry.

Ancestral Protein Reconstruction and Functional Trajectory Replay

This methodology, derived from studies on BCL-2 family proteins and Dicer helicase, is used to trace the evolutionary history of a protein's function and assess the contingency of functional outcomes [112] [134].

• Sequence Alignment and Phylogeny Inference: Collect a comprehensive set of extant protein sequences from public databases. Perform a multiple sequence alignment using tools like MAFFT or ClustalOmega. Infer a maximum likelihood phylogenetic tree using software such as IQ-TREE or RAxML.
• Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction: Use statistical methods (e.g., Bayesian or maximum likelihood) implemented in tools like PAML or HyPhy to infer the most probable amino acid sequences at the ancestral nodes of the phylogenetic tree.
• Gene Synthesis and Protein Purification: Commission the chemical synthesis of the codon-optimized DNA sequences for the reconstructed ancestral proteins. Clone these sequences into an appropriate expression vector (e.g., pET for bacterial expression). Express and purify the ancestral proteins using affinity chromatography.
• Biochemical and Functional Assays: Characterize the function of the ancestral proteins using relevant assays. For the BCL-2 study, this involved using a PACE system to select for ancestral proteins that evolved to bind specific coregulators (BID/NOXA) [112]. For Dicer helicase, ATP hydrolysis activity was measured in the presence of dsRNA [134].
• Replaying Evolution: Use continuous evolution technologies (like PACE) or site-directed mutagenesis to launch multiple, independent evolutionary trajectories from a single ancestral starting point under strong, identical selection pressure. Sequence the final evolved proteins from multiple replicates to quantify the roles of chance (variation among replicates from the same start) and contingency (variation when starting from different ancestral nodes) [112].

Visualizing Key Signaling Pathways and Workflows

GLP-1 Receptor Central Signaling Pathway

The glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1R) is a key therapeutic target, and understanding its signaling is a classic example of a validated pathway. The diagram below illustrates the core signaling cascade triggered upon GLP-1 ligand binding [135].

Therapeutic Target Validation Workflow

This workflow outlines the critical path from initial target identification through to preclinical validation, integrating computational and empirical methods [129] [130].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Successful target validation relies on a suite of specialized reagents and platforms. The following table details key solutions used in the experiments cited throughout this guide.

Table 2: Key Research Reagent Solutions for Target Validation

Research Reagent / Platform	Primary Function in Validation	Application Context in Reviewed Studies
Small Interfering RNA (siRNA) [130]	Gene knockdown by degrading target mRNA, mimicking therapeutic inhibition.	Used for initial functional validation of a target's role in a disease phenotype without a drug.
Adeno-Associated Virus (AAV) [131]	In vivo delivery vector for gene editing components or transgenes.	Used in split-intein systems to deliver base editors to target tissues (e.g., retina in mouse models).
Phage-Assisted Continuous Evolution (PACE) [112]	A continuous evolution platform to rapidly evolve novel protein functions under strong selection.	Used to replay evolution from ancestral BCL-2 proteins, selecting for new protein-protein interaction specificities.
Tensor Factorization Models (e.g., Rosalind) [132]	Computational prediction of novel disease-gene therapeutic relationships from heterogeneous knowledge graphs.	Used to prioritize candidate therapeutic targets for diseases like Rheumatoid Arthritis, with subsequent experimental testing.
CRISPR Base Editors (ABE, CBE) [131]	Precision genome editing tools that chemically change one DNA base into another without double-strand breaks.	Used to correct specific pathogenic point mutations (e.g., in USH2A) in vitro and in vivo to validate target rescue.
Patient-Derived Cells (e.g., FLSs) [132]	Ex vivo model that maintains the pathological phenotype of the donor's disease.	Used to test the efficacy of predicted targets (e.g., for Rheumatoid Arthritis) in a clinically relevant human cellular context.

Translating a therapeutic target from a laboratory finding to a clinical candidate requires synthesizing evidence from multiple, orthogonal validation methods. The journey involves progressing from computational predictions and in vitro knockdown studies to highly precise genetic manipulations in increasingly complex models, including patient-derived cells and animal models. For ancestral protein research, this process is enriched by an evolutionary perspective, which can reveal fundamental functional states and inform on the potential for therapeutic repurposing of ancient protein functions. The final clinical assessment, as framed by the GOT-IT recommendations, must integrate this experimental data with considerations of druggability, safety, and differentiation from existing therapies [129]. By systematically applying and interpreting the data from the comparative methods outlined in this guide, researchers can build a compelling evidence-based case for advancing a therapeutic target into clinical development.

Conclusion

The rigorous in vivo validation of ancestral proteins represents a convergence of evolutionary biology, structural bioinformatics, and experimental biochemistry. By adopting the integrated framework outlined—from robust phylogenetic inference and strategic use of structural data to multi-faceted validation and careful troubleshooting—researchers can confidently resurrect and characterize ancient proteins. This approach not only deciphers fundamental evolutionary mechanisms and historical constraints on protein function but also opens tangible avenues for biomedical innovation. Successfully validated ancestral enzymes, regulators, and binding proteins offer novel scaffolds for drug development, insights into the evolution of disease mechanisms, and tools for synthetic biology. The future of the field lies in refining reconstruction algorithms with richer structural data, expanding in vivo models to capture tissue-specific effects, and systematically exploring the vast functional landscape of the ancient protein world to inform the therapeutics of tomorrow.

References

• 1. Ancestral sequence reconstruction - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancestral_sequence_reconstruction]
• 2. Ancestral protein reconstruction: techniques and applications - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26351909/]
• 3. : techniques and applications Ancestral protein reconstruction [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/hsz-2015-0158/html]
• 4. reveals evolutionary events... Ancestral protein reconstruction [https://elifesciences.org/articles/85120]
• 5. Enhancing the pharmaceutical properties of protein drugs by ancestral sequence reconstruction - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5225049/]
• 6. Enhancing the pharmaceutical properties of protein drugs by ancestral sequence reconstruction - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27669166/]
• 7. Ancestral reconstruction of protein interaction networks - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31658251/]
• 8. of Reconstruction sequences and its applications ancestral protein [https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-4-33]
• 9. Assessing the Accuracy of Ancestral Protein Reconstruction Methods | PLOS Computational Biology [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020069]
• 10. Reconstruction of Ancestral Protein Sequences Using Autoregressive Generative Models - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40139916/]
• 11. Reconstructing Ancient Proteins to Understand the Causes of Structure and Function - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6141191/]
• 12. Functionalism and structuralism in biology: stances or explanatory strategies? | Synthese [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-025-05128-x]
• 13. resurrection and engineering opportunities of the... Ancestral protein [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-02953-0?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 14. Evolution of protein specificity: Insights from ancestral protein reconstruction - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6141201/]
• 15. Robustness of Reconstructed Ancestral to... Protein Functions [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6095102/]
• 16. Engineering: a New Protein Emerging at the Intersection of... Paradigm [https://www.byfounders.vc/insights/protein-engineering-a-new-paradigm-emerging-at-the-intersection-of-ai-and-biotechnology]
• 17. High-Throughput Reconstruction of Ancestral Protein Sequence, Structure, and Molecular Function - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30298396/]
• 18. Advances in post-processing methods for multiple sequence alignment [https://colab.ws/articles/10.3389%2Ffgene.2025.1722317]
• 19. Made Simple: A Sequence to the... - Omics tutorials Alignment Guide [https://omicstutorials.com/sequence-alignment-made-simple-a-guide-to-the-top-open-source-tools/]
• 20. PhyloTune: An efficient method to accelerate phylogenetic updates... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-61684-3?error=cookies_not_supported&code=0cb369c6-9c6a-477a-b9d3-c7fabb2a654b]
• 21. Evaluation of Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Methods to Infer Nonstationary Patterns of Nucleotide Substitution - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4512549/]
• 22. A new method of inference of ancestral nucleotide and amino acid sequences - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8601501/]
• 23. Robustness of Reconstructed Ancestral Protein Functions to Statistical Uncertainty - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27795231/]
• 24. An experimental phylogeny to benchmark ancestral sequence reconstruction | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12847]
• 25. PhyloBot: A Web Portal for Automated Phylogenetics, Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction, and Exploration of Mutational Trajectories | PLOS Computational Biology [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004976]
• 26. of Comparing for ordered and disordered models evolution proteins [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19923193/]
• 27. MEGA: A biologist-centric software for evolutionary analysis of DNA... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2562624/]
• 28. ASPEN, a methodology for reconstructing with... protein evolution [https://elifesciences.org/articles/47676]
• 29. GitHub - facebookresearch/esm: Evolutionary Scale Modeling ... [https://github.com/facebookresearch/esm]
• 30. Profiles for Evolutionary Fitness Prediction Protein [https://arxiv.org/html/2510.07286v1]
• 31. Ancestral sequence reconstruction - An underused approach to understand the evolution of gene function in plants? - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8039532/]
• 32. Engineering indel and substitution variants of diverse and ancient... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9632902/]
• 33. Ancestral sequence reconstruction produces thermally stable enzymes with mesophilic enzyme-like catalytic properties | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-72418-4]
• 34. A method for direct measurement of protein stability in vivo - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19157083/]
• 35. Contingency and chance erase necessity in the experimental evolution... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8282340/]
• 36. When directed evolution met ancestral enzyme resurrection - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5270717/]
• 37. Analysis of Codon Comparative Tools: Advancing... Optimization [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12010093/]
• 38. GeneOptimizer Process for Successful Gene Optimization [https://www.thermofisher.com/ru/ru/home/life-science/cloning/gene-synthesis/geneoptimizer.html]
• 39. Optimizing the dynamics of protein expression | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-43857-5]
• 40. Development of a gene platform for the efficient large scale... synthesis [https://bmcbiotechnol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12896-016-0316-3]
• 41. Automated high-throughput DNA synthesis and assembly - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10945133/]
• 42. Optimization of Protein Expression in Escherichia Coli [https://www.biopharminternational.com/view/optimization-protein-expression-escherichia-coli]
• 43. Soluble protein | PDF expression optimization [https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/soluble-protein-expression-optimization-68297382/68297382]
• 44. Frontiers | Before and after AlphaFold : An overview of protein... 2 [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/bioinformatics/articles/10.3389/fbinf.2023.1120370/full]
• 45. How accurate are AlphaFold ? | 2 structure predictions AlphaFold [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/validation-and-impact/how-accurate-are-alphafold-structure-predictions/]
• 46. How have AlphaFold 3’s predictions been validated ? | AlphaFold [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/alphafold-3-and-alphafold-server/introducing-alphafold-3/how-have-alphafold-3s-predictions-been-validated/]
• 47. An update for AlphaFold 3 versus experimental structures: assessing... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41401-025-01617-4?error=cookies_not_supported&code=e90d9cc4-c79f-4ab3-925c-18823859b760]
• 48. : evaluation on... AlphaFold 2 versus experimental structures [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35778488/]
• 49. NMR Spectroscopy for the Validation of AlphaFold 2 Structures - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11838581/]
• 50. A self-paced tutorial for visualising protein structures using PyMOL [https://figshare.edgehill.ac.uk/articles/educational_resource/A_self-paced_tutorial_for_visualising_protein_structures_using_PyMOL/21610089]
• 51. Introduction to SeqIO · Biopython [https://biopython.org/wiki/SeqIO]
• 52. Bio.SeqIO.FastaIO module — Biopython 1.76 documentation [https://biopython.org/docs/1.76/api/Bio.SeqIO.FastaIO.html]
• 53. Five Popular Model Organisms [https://blog.addgene.org/plasmids-101-five-popular-model-organisms]
• 54. Explained: Types, Uses & Key Traits in Biology Model Organism [https://www.vedantu.com/biology/model-organism]
• 55. - The School of Biomedical Sciences Wiki Model organism [https://teaching.ncl.ac.uk/bms/wiki/index.php/Model_organism]
• 56. An Updated Comparison of Common Model Organisms [https://invivobiosystems.com/disease-modeling/an-updated-comparison-of-common-model-organisms/]
• 57. Common Comparing | ZeClinics CRO Model Organisms [https://www.zeclinics.com/blog/comparing-common-model-organisms/]
• 58. Assessing the accuracy of ancestral protein reconstruction methods - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16789817/]
• 59. Diversity in Genetic In Vivo Methods for Protein - Protein Interaction... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3372256/]
• 60. Methods to study Protein - Protein Interactions - Berthold Technologies... [https://www.berthold.com/en-in/bioanalytic/applications/protein-interaction/methods/]
• 61. Improved split fluorescent proteins for... | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-00494-8?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 62. A split enhanced green fluorescent protein-based reporter in yeast two-hybrid system - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17203394/]
• 63. Computation-guided optimization of split - PMC protein systems [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8084939/]
• 64. -LOV BRET enables versatile and specific transcriptional... Luciferase [https://elifesciences.org/articles/43826]
• 65. Tips for Screening with Yeast Two Hybrid Systems [https://blog.addgene.org/tips-for-screening-with-yeast-two-hybrid-systems]
• 66. Expression of varied GFPs in Saccharomyces cerevisiae: codon optimization yields stronger than expected expression and fluorescence intensity | Scientific Reports [https://www.nature.com/articles/srep35932]
• 67. Analyzing Kinase Similarity in Small Molecule and Protein Structural Space to Explore the Limits of Multi-Target Screening - PMC [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7865522/]
• 68. Advancements in Protein Kinase Inhibitors: From Discovery to Clinical Applications - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12180671/]
• 69. Reveal Protein Shapes Deeper Evolutionary Relationships [https://www.azolifesciences.com/news/20250116/Protein-Shapes-Reveal-Deeper-Evolutionary-Relationships.aspx]
• 70. Computational analysis of kinase inhibitor selectivity using structural knowledge - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6330000/]
• 71. High-Throughput Reconstruction of Ancestral Sequence... Protein [https://experiments.springernature.com/articles/10.1007/978-1-4939-8736-8_8?error=cookies_not_supported&code=9580b9f5-a5e1-4404-9e13-af0cd2d224cf]
• 72. Conservation of an Intramolecular Deep ... Evolutionary Protein Kinase [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3250476/]
• 73. Differentiating Inhibitors of Closely Related Protein Kinases with Single- or Multi-Target Activity via Explainable Machine Learning and Feature Analysis - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9032434/]
• 74. Human fructosamine - 3 - kinase : purification, sequencing, substrate ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11522682/]
• 75. The molecular basis of Human FN K mediated phosphorylation of... 3 [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-56207-z?error=cookies_not_supported&code=fbd3fe1c-e98c-4cff-b913-fe09a146f592]
• 76. Multi-omics reveals new links between Fructosamine - 3 - Kinase ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41540-024-00390-0?error=cookies_not_supported&code=ff7b627d-9cfb-4e53-97c9-31dbfa51c591]
• 77. A new HPLC-based assay for the measurement of... | De Gruyter Brill [https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/cclm-2012-0853/html]
• 78. Protein stability: computation, sequence statistics, and new experimental methods - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4858314/]
• 79. Evolution of frustrated and stabilising contacts in reconstructed ancient ... [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00249-021-01500-0]
• 80. Biochemical and structural basis of Dicer helicase function unveiled by... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39990435/]
• 81. Finding a vocation for validation: taking proteomics beyond association and location - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9906375/]
• 82. Robustness of ancestral to sequence ... reconstruction phylogenetic [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20368266/]
• 83. Alignment Modulates Ancestral Sequence Reconstruction Accuracy - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5995191/]
• 84. (PDF) In target vivo using gene invalidation, RNA... validation [https://www.academia.edu/59674330/In_vivo_target_validation_using_gene_invalidation_RNA_interference_and_protein_functional_knockout_models_it_is_the_time_to_combine]
• 85. Extant Sequence Reconstruction: The Accuracy of Ancestral Sequence Reconstructions Evaluated by Extant Sequence Cross-Validation - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38502220/]
• 86. Reagent and laboratory contamination can critically impact... [https://bmcbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12915-014-0087-z]
• 87. Frontiers | The Use of CRISPR/Cas9 Gene Editing to Confirm... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cellular-and-infection-microbiology/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2018.00087/full]
• 88. Breaching Barriers: Microplastic Translocation into Human Body Through Food and Implications for Neurodegeneration | Current Pollution Reports [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40726-025-00386-2]
• 89. Strategies: A Path for Quality & Safety | PDA Contamination Control [https://www.pda.org/pda-letter-portal/home/full-article/contamination-control-strategies-a-path-for-quality-safety]
• 90. GuidelineforChemistry,Manufacturing,andControl(CMC)StudiesandEvaluationofImmuneCellTherapyProducts(Trial)-News [https://www.ccfdie.org/en/gzdt/webinfo/2024/12/1732613148557515.htm]
• 91. facilitates functional evolution in an ancient transcription factor Epistasis [https://elifesciences.org/articles/88737]
• 92. Direct coupling analysis of epistasis in allosteric materials - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7067494/]
• 93. Reconstruction of Ancestral Sequences Using Autoregressive... Protein [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12006719/]
• 94. ProteInfer, deep neural networks for protein functional inference | eLife [https://elifesciences.org/articles/80942]
• 95. Contrastive losses as generalized models of global epistasis [https://arxiv.org/html/2305.03136v4/]
• 96. Functional regression method for whole genome eQTL epistasis ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-017-3777-4]
• 97. Engineering the protein dynamics of an ancestral luciferase [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-23450-z?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 98. De novo proteins integrate cellular systems using ancient ... protein [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11384008/]
• 99. Biology in a Gray Box: Targeting the Emergent Properties of Protein Complexes: 2011 Yale Chemical Biology Symposium [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3238318/]
• 100. Biophysics-based protein language models for... | Nature Methods [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41592-025-02776-2?error=cookies_not_supported&code=dd44a5ec-d0e9-43da-86a2-2f042be5c4c1]
• 101. Frontiers | Applying computational protein to therapeutic... design [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2025.1571371/full]
• 102. Frontiers | Protein structure prediction via deep learning: an in-depth review [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pharmacology/articles/10.3389/fphar.2025.1498662/full]
• 103. - Machine -guided directed evolution for learning engineering protein [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31308553/]
• 104. Optochemical control over mRNA translation by photocaged phosphorodiamidate morpholino oligonucleotides in vivo | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58207-5]
• 105. Validation framework for in vivo digital measures - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11751004/]
• 106. Computational scoring and experimental ... | Nature Biotechnology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-024-02214-2?error=cookies_not_supported&code=a18544cb-0203-4f66-bf52-45e7e8fd4898]
• 107. Comparing protein behaviour in vitro and in vivo, what does the data really tell us? - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0959440X17300015]
• 108. Molecular Archeology: Reconstruction of Experimental ... Ancestral [https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/44011]
• 109. Design and implementation of bimolecular fluorescence... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17406412/]
• 110. MoBiFC: development of a modular bimolecular fluorescence... [https://plantmethods.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13007-022-00902-1]
• 111. Bimolecular fluorescence complementation - Wikipedia [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bimolecular_fluorescence_complementation]
• 112. Contingency and chance erase necessity in the experimental evolution... [https://elifesciences.org/articles/67336]
• 113. A comparison of in vivo and in vitro estimates of protein digestibility of native and thermally processed vegetable proteins | Plant Foods for Human Nutrition [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF01093886]
• 114. orthology methods using phylogenetic patterns defined... Benchmarking [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8138875/]
• 115. The Use of Orthologous Sequences to Predict the... | PLOS Genetics [https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000968]
• 116. identification methods using functional... Benchmarking ortholog [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2006-7-4-r31]
• 117. A fast approach for structural and evolutionary analysis based on energetic profile protein comparison | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57374-9]
• 118. Fast protein structure comparison through effective representation learning with contrastive graph neural networks - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8982879/]
• 119. The MULTICOM toolbox for protein structure prediction | BMC Bioinformatics | Full Text [https://bmcbioinformatics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2105-13-65]
• 120. Genome-wide analysis of the in tRNA structurome reveals RNA... vivo [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9231505/]
• 121. How have AlphaFold2’s predictions of protein structure been... [https://www.ebi.ac.uk/training/online/courses/alphafold/validation-and-impact/how-have-alphafolds-predictions-of-protein-structure-been-validated/]
• 122. cellular protein–RNA interactions by deep... Predicting dynamic [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-021-00476-y?error=cookies_not_supported]
• 123. and Structural , evaluation, and functional in... prediction validation [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10787220/]
• 124. Structure Prediction [https://www.rcsb.org/docs/additional-resources/structure-prediction]
• 125. of reconstructed Comparative with their... analysis ancestral proteins [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10764835/]
• 126. Clustering predicted structures at the scale of the known protein universe | Nature [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06510-w]
• 127. Clustering predicted structures at the scale of the known protein universe - PubMed [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37704730/]
• 128. ProteinHistorian: Tools for the Comparative of Eukaryote... Analysis [https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002567]
• 129. Improving target assessment in biomedical research: the GOT-IT recommendations | Nature Reviews Drug Discovery [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41573-020-0087-3]
• 130. Identification & Target in Drug... | Technology Networks Validation [https://www.technologynetworks.com/drug-discovery/articles/target-identification-validation-in-drug-discovery-312290]
• 131. Systematic empirical evaluation of individual base editing targets ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39881543/]
• 132. Preclinical validation of therapeutic predicted by tensor... targets [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-74922-z?error=cookies_not_supported&code=e899f100-bb45-4e41-986c-e5bf7ace22ee]
• 133. Therapeutic target prediction for orphan diseases integrating genome-wide and transcriptome-wide association studies | Nature Communications [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-58464-4]
• 134. reconstruction reveals evolutionary events... Ancestral protein [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37068011/]
• 135. Engineered GLP-1R-targeting nanoplatforms: multimodal therapeutics in human diseases | Journal of Nanobiotechnology | Full Text [https://jnanobiotechnology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12951-025-03677-4]