AI protein design

What protein do you wish existed?

Say what the protein has to do - our AI works out how to build it.

a protein that cuts PET at 85 °C in an industrial washing line, alkaline detergent, and doesn’t step on anyone’s patent

or

the protein we already use - same job, minus the two places it cuts that we don’t want

What comes back is a decision and the evidence behind it. The wet lab stays yours.

How it works.

Where it starts

You don’t need to know how to build it.

Most tools want the answer already half-formed. Vidika’s AI starts at the problem - and it reads before it builds.

You say

based on the TnpB IsDra nuclease, design an improved version with a more tolerant TAM

Vidika’s AI reads two records at once

The literature

The consensus and the prior art a design has to be informed by - and it cites its sources.

PubMed · Semantic Scholar

Other fields entirely

Structural principles from architecture, network geometry and physics - the ones a biologist would not surface.

Semantic Scholar

Only if you ask for it

The patent record

What the record shows. Evidence, never a legal opinion, and never that a design is safe to sell.

Patent search

Where this idea came from

Every idea in the plan carries the paper it came from.

Cre recombinase uses conformational equilibrium between autoinhibited and active states to control specificity - structural gating rather than base contacts alone.

Read the paper 10.1021/acs.biochem.4c00841

reading, searching, modelling, ranking - all at once, not one thing after another. The bench still takes what the bench takes.

Before building

Vidika asks only what cannot be worked out.

The rest is worked out for you. What is left is a real choice, and it is yours.

2 OF 7

Which delivery route is the technical bottleneck for the 500 AA constraint?

Identifies whether protein size or biochemical properties are the limiting factor.

Viral vector packagingRNP stabilityPollen deliveryNanoparticle encapsulation

None of these - I’ll say it in my own words

Your choice

Three ways to build it. You choose.

Several routes are scored before one is committed to. Take a different one later and the first attempt stays - nothing is overwritten.

Concept 1 · picked~85%

Target-Conditioned TAM Pocket Redesign

A 408-residue TnpB variant with its TAM-contacting residues explicitly redesigned to tolerate non-TTGAT motifs.

6 covered1 not ours to check
Concept 2~75%

Secondary Shell Conformational Gating

A TnpB IsDra variant with a relaxed secondary shell, introducing conformational flexibility to the TAM pocket.

Something to check in the kill signal
Concept 3~88%

Guide-RNA Interface Relaxation

A TnpB IsDra variant with an optimized guide-RNA interface that accommodates non-canonical R-loop geometries.

Something to check in the risks

Each percentage is the chance it clears the six requirements we can check here. Not a claim about the bench.

What comes back

A prediction is not a measurement.

A strong fold score is not a measured site. Every number came out of the instrument that produced it, and anything only your bench can settle is named as exactly that.

The designed nuclease, folded, with its guide strand
Ready to test

The design is ready.

4Met
0Did not come through
3For the laboratory
0Faults still standing

The instruments

Seventeen instruments, and the judgement to pick between them.

A narrow set understood properly is worth more than a catalogue of three hundred nobody has read. All but the two public sequence searches run on our own machines.

Design it
RFdiffusion3RFdiffusion3-NADisCoProteinMPNNLigandMPNNESM-IF1
Check its shape
Boltz-2ESMFoldUS-alignSaProt-DGESM-scan
Prove it’s new
BLASTPSI-BLASTViennaRNAAutoDock Vina
Look it up, never guess
SeqFetch
Screen it for safety
Common Mechanism

From your phone

All of it, start to finish, wherever you are.

A researcher reading a finished Vidika report on her phone

Why you can trust the answer

Five things this AI is never allowed to do.

An AI that invents things is worse than no AI at all. These are not guidelines. They are checks in the code, and a request that breaks one is refused.

Never give you a number it did not measure. If no instrument produced it, you get no number - never a plausible-looking guess.

Never write a sequence from memory. Every sequence and every reference is fetched fresh from a source you can open yourself.

Never score a molecule it cannot prove it built. If a candidate cannot be traced back to the machine that made it, it is thrown away rather than reported.

Never cut corners to finish sooner. If a job does not fit the time it was given, the clock was wrong - not the design.

Never quietly skip what it could not test. Anything only your bench can settle is labelled as exactly that, right beside everything it did prove.

And what we don’t claim

We publish no performance claims. Until designs have been made and tested by a lab that is not us - and we can say out of how many, against what, and who took the reading - there is no number here worth quoting.

So - what protein do you wish existed?

Ask for the whole thing, not the safe half of it.

Invitation only, for now.