ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Do protein language models learn phylogeny?
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Protein language models are accidental taxonomists.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Protein Language Models: Applications and Perspectives.Journal of proteome research · 2026Review
- Engineering a hemoglobin variant with enhanced stability and oxygen affinity using a protein language model.Frontiers in chemistry · 2026Article
- Evaluating Pretrained Protein Language Model Embeddings as Proxies for Functional Similarity.Journal of molecular evolution · 2025Article
- Protein Language Models are Accidental Taxonomists.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Protein Structural Phylogenetics.Genome biology and evolution · 2025Review
- Fine-tuning protein language models unlocks the potential of underrepresented viral proteomes.PeerJ · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Deep machine learning demonstrates a capacity to uncover evolutionary relationships directly from protein sequences, in effect internalising notions inherent to classical phylogenetic tree inference. We connect these two paradigms by assessing the capacity of protein-based language models (pLMs) to discern phylogenetic relationships without being explicitly trained to do so. We evaluate ESM2, ProtTrans, and MSA-Transformer relative to classical phylogenetic methods, while also considering sequence insertions and deletions (indels) across 114 Pfam datasets. The largest ESM2 model tends to outperform other pLMs (including the multimodal ESM3) by recovering phylogenetic relationships among homologous protein sequences in both low- and high-gap settings. pLMs agree with conventional phylogenetic methods in general, but more so for protein families with fewer implied indels, highlighting indels as a key factor differentiating classical phylogenetics from pLMs. We find that pLMs preferentially capture broader as opposed to finer evolutionary relationships within a specific protein family, where ESM2 has a sweet spot for highly divergent sequences, at remote distance. Less than 10% of neurons are sufficient to broadly recapitulate classical phylogenetic distances; when used in isolation, the difference between the paradigms is further diminished. We show these neurons are polysemantic, shared among different homologous families but never fully overlapping. We highlight the potential of ESM2 as a complementary tool for phylogenetic analysis, especially when extending to remote homologs that are difficult to align and imply complex histories of insertions and deletions. Implementations of analyses are available at https://github.com/santule/pLMEvo.
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.