Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38913893›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024

Machine learning in biological physics: From biomolecular prediction to design.

Jonathan Martin, Marcos Lequerica Mateos, José N Onuchic, Ivan Coluzza, Faruck Morcos

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Simulating biomolecules for physiological timescales.Current opinion in structural biology · 2025
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Machine learning meets physics: A two-way street.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jonathan Martin *Department of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080.ORCID 0000-0003-0946-3864
Marcos Lequerica Mateos *BCMaterials, Basque Center for Materials, Applications and Nanostructures, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Science Park, Leioa 48940, Spain.ORCID 0009-0002-2067-2122
José N OnuchicCenter for Theoretical Biological Physics, Rice University, Houston, TX 77005.ORCID 0000-0002-9448-0388
Ivan ColuzzaBCMaterials, Basque Center for Materials, Applications and Nanostructures, Universidad del País Vasco/Euskal Herriko Unibertsitatea Science Park, Leioa 48940, Spain.
Faruck MorcosDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75080.ORCID 0000-0001-6208-1561

Funding

Computational Tools to Characterize the Effects of Protein and RNA Variability in Function and InteractionsR35GM133631 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS DALLAS · PI Alonso Faruck Morcos · 2019 to 2026
$3.0M
Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas (CPRIT) N/AHHS | National Institutes of Health (NIH) R35GM133631HPC Europe Program EHPC-BEN-2023B07-015HPC Europe Program EHPC-DEV-2023D06-018Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MCIN) PID2022-139467OB-I00Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación (MCIN) PRTR-C17.I1National Science Foundation (NSF) MCB-1943442National Science Foundation (NSF) PHY-2019745National Science Foundation (NSF) PHY-2210291NIGMS NIH HHS R35 GM133631Welch Foundation (The Welch Foundation) C-1792
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Machine learning has been proposed as an alternative to theoretical modeling when dealing with complex problems in biological physics. However, in this perspective, we argue that a more successful approach is a proper combination of these two methodologies. We discuss how ideas coming from physical modeling neuronal processing led to early formulations of computational neural networks, e.g., Hopfield networks. We then show how modern learning approaches like Potts models, Boltzmann machines, and the transformer architecture are related to each other, specifically, through a shared energy representation. We summarize recent efforts to establish these connections and provide examples on how each of these formulations integrating physical modeling and machine learning have been successful in tackling recent problems in biomolecular structure, dynamics, function, evolution, and design. Instances include protein structure prediction; improvement in computational complexity and accuracy of molecular dynamics simulations; better inference of the effects of mutations in proteins leading to improved evolutionary modeling and finally how machine learning is revolutionizing protein engineering and design. Going beyond naturally existing protein sequences, a connection to protein design is discussed where synthetic sequences are able to fold to naturally occurring motifs driven by a model rooted in physical principles. We show that this model is "learnable" and propose its future use in the generation of unique sequences that can fold into a target structure.

Indexed as

Machine LearningNeural Networks, ComputerProteinsMolecular Dynamics SimulationProtein EngineeringProteinsPotts modelprotein designprotein evolutionprotein structure and dynamicstransformer model

Identifiers

PMID38913893
PMCPMC11228481

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.