Pre-synthesis stability screen
Before you spend months expressing a sequence, we test whether the full protein holds its fold in water and heat and check that its start and end boundaries aren’t cut off. We also flag free cysteines, active-site glycosylation traps, chemical degradation motifs, strained ligand poses, and peptide synthesis stalls across your chosen host (E. coli, Bacillus, yeast, mammalian, plant, filamentous, or cell-free). Built for batches of 20–50 enzymes, binders, repeat proteins, short peptides, giant proteins up to 2,000 residues, or multi-chain oligomers — whether natural database hits or designs from AlphaFold, ESMFold, Boltz-2, OpenFold 3, RFdiffusion, ProteinMPNN, or BindCraft. Every candidate runs in water and salt at 300 K (27 °C), then steps to 330 K (57 °C) in OpenMM to see whether its fold, active site, subunit interface, and metal cage stay intact.
When you should not buy this
If your question is binding affinity, measure it rather than predict it. For small, well-behaved binders against a single known target, high-throughput services return a measured KD at a price no prediction can honestly compete with, and published benchmarks show computational binding metrics correlating only weakly with the measured value. We would rather say so than take the project. What those services do not cover is the list above: a construct that will not express because of cut-off ends, an active-site glycan shield, or a host disulfide mismatch, a multi-chain assembly, a metal-loaded site, or whether a fold survives heat rather than whether it binds. That is where host checks and water simulation earn their place, and it is the only place we will sell it to you.
Tiers, protocol and what you receive
Step 2 • Host, glycan-shield, PTM & SPPS check Separates real 3D disulfide bonds from unpaired cysteines that stall ER secretion; flags N-linked (
N-X-S/T) and dense O-linked glycosylation sites positioned where host glycans block the active site or binding face in yeast, fungal, mammalian, or plant hosts; scans 9 chemical and protease liabilities (NG/NS/NT deamidation, DG isomerization, DP acid cleavage, exposed Met oxidation, dibasic protease clips, MHC-II 9-mer cores); and scores short peptides (≤85 AA) for solid-phase synthesis (SPPS) coupling stalls and Native Chemical Ligation (NCL) junctionsStep 3 • Ligand strain, multimer & water/heat MD Checks co-folded substrates/cofactors for pose agreement and high-energy internal conformational strain; verifies hetero-oligomer cross-interface co-evolutionary contact support and drops homo-oligomers that pack as catalytically dead “inert bricks” or inverted micelles; then runs all-atom OpenMM simulation in water and 150 mM NaCl (27 °C → 57 °C), tracking backbone drift, dynamic catalytic-triad closure, and polarizable divalent/trivalent metal-cage retention (12-6-4 model)
| Tier | Per candidate | The question it answers | Typical use |
|---|---|---|---|
| Triage | 0.5 ns | Does the fold survive contact with solvent and a thermal ramp at all? | A whole screen, 20–50 candidates |
| Standard | 10 ns | Once the fast failures are gone, does it still hold its shape and its interface? | A shortlist of about ten |
| Extended | 50 ns+ ×3 | Does the answer reproduce across independent runs, or did one trajectory get lucky? | The 3–5 you are about to commit budget to |
Extended runs are triplicate with independent starting velocities, and we report the spread across replicas rather than a single mean, so you can judge how firm the result is. Most projects run Triage across the full set, then take the survivors up a tier.
You send
- 20–50 sequences in FASTA (monomers, multimers, short peptides, or giant proteins up to 2,000 AA)
- Chosen synthesis or expression route (SPPS/NCL, E. coli, yeast, mammalian, plant, filamentous, or cell-free)
- Any 3D structures you already have
- Assembly stoichiometry, active-site residues, substrates/cofactors, or bound metals, if applicable
We check & measure
- Intact start/end boundaries, structural end-caps & knot-free giant chunk stitching
- 3D disulfides vs. unpaired ER cysteines, active-site glycan shielding, 9 chemical/protease/MHC-II liabilities & SPPS coupling stalls
- Backbone drift and unfolding in water at 27 °C and 57 °C
- Ligand pose strain, multimer “inert brick” rejection, dynamic triad persistence & polarizable metal-cage retention
You receive
- A clear table of every candidate: host/glycan/PTM/SPPS flags, stability numbers, and pass/marginal/fail band
- One summary page per candidate
- Every 3D model as PDB
- All metrics as JSON, ready to plot
- A plain methods section you can paste into a report
Each candidate lands in one of three bands. The cutoffs are fixed before your run, never chosen afterward to suit the results, and they are set from matched intact and destabilized control structures run alongside your candidates at no extra charge (plus any reference controls you supply) rather than read off a fixed table:
Marginal moves more than a well-behaved control, but does not come apart
Fails loses its fold or its interface under the 330 K stress step
This page used to print fixed numeric cutoffs. We took them down because our own benchmark showed they were too permissive: control structures we had deliberately broken, with most of the chain cut away and the core opened to solvent, still cleared the failing threshold. A band nothing can land in is not a verdict. Cutoffs go back here as numbers once they are confirmed on structures that were not used to derive them; until then you get the exact cutoffs applied to your run, and the control results behind them, in the report.
Our benchmark is written down, including the parts that went badly. We tested
whether a 0.5 ns 300 K → 330 K run can rank five matched
thermophile-versus-mesophile natural homolog pairs by stability: it scored 2 of 5
correct (one-sided sign test p = 0.812), no better than a coin flip,
so we do not claim it ranks surviving natural proteins. What it did do in our
pre-registered intact-versus-broken control benchmark (ten intact crystallographic
structures against five excised central-40% internal-fragment negative controls):
10 of 10 intact folds held (mean 330 K core Cα RMSD 1.13 Å,
range 0.61–1.86 Å), whereas the destabilized internal-fragment
controls unpacked to a mean 330 K Cα RMSD of 2.49 Å (range
1.56–3.18 Å) — a 1.36 Å mean separation — while
also confirming intact four-cysteine Fe–S4 coordination in
Pyrococcus furiosus rubredoxin (1BRF, min Fe–S
2.13 Å). On the host-secretion and
quaternary side, secreted proteins routinely carry 3D-unpaired cysteines that stall
eukaryotic ER export alongside true structural disulfide bonds that naive cysteine
removal breaks — and over a third of homo-oligomer designs clearing high static
interface confidence pack tightly with zero closed active sites or collapse as inverted
micelles. Static confidence scores pass both failure modes. We also threw away our first
simulation attempt after finding our own sample-preparation artifacts inside it (a
two-chain asymmetric unit in 1C9O and 348 riding crystallographic hydrogens
in 5RXN). You can inspect the full benchmark table and sample deliverable
previews below before you commit a budget.
The 3–5 day figure is Triage across a full screen: three business days for up to 24 sequences, five for 25–50, measured on our own hardware rather than estimated. Standard and Extended tiers run longer and we quote their schedule in writing at intake, because it depends on sequence length, oligomeric state and how much GPU capacity you want us to add. Fee scales with tier, sequence count, and whether multimer interfaces, ligand poses, or metal centers are involved.
What this does not tell you
No tier here measures thermodynamic stability. Triage is a short-timescale filter: it separates folds that come apart quickly under a thermal ramp from folds that hold their shape. It catches candidates that were never going to work; it is not evidence that a survivor is stable. Standard and Extended make that same call more confidently, not a different call. They cannot put two survivors in order: we tested exactly that, and it scored no better than chance. None of it predicts expression yield, solubility in your buffer, aggregation over days, or catalytic activity. Use it to drop what comes apart, not in place of an assay.