ArticleScience advances2025
Self-supervised machine learning methods for protein design improve sampling but not the identification of high-fitness variants.
Article in Science advances, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Approaches for regulating enzyme activities: Recent advances in experiment and computation.Current opinion in structural biology · 2025Review
- Biophysics-based protein language models for protein engineering.Nature methods · 2025Article
- A combinatorial mutational map of active non-native protein kinases by deep learning guided sequence design.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Biophysics-based protein language models for protein engineering.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) is changing the world of computational protein design, with data-driven methods surpassing biophysical-based methods in experimental success. However, they are most often reported as case studies, lack integration and standardization, and are therefore hard to objectively compare. In this study, we established a streamlined and diverse toolbox for methods that predict amino acid probabilities inside the Rosetta software framework that allows for the side-by-side comparison of these models. Subsequently, existing protein fitness landscapes were used to benchmark novel ML methods in realistic protein design settings. We focused on the traditional problems of protein design: sampling and scoring. A major finding of our study is that ML approaches are better at purging the sampling space from deleterious mutations. Nevertheless, scoring resulting mutations without model fine-tuning showed no clear improvement over scoring with Rosetta. We conclude that ML now complements, rather than replaces, biophysical methods in protein design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.