ArticleProteins2025
Supervised Learning of Protein Melting Temperature: Cross-Species vs. Species-Specific Prediction.
Article in Proteins, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Protein melting temperatures are important proxies for stability, and frequently probed in protein engineering campaigns, for instance for enzyme discovery and protein optimization. With the emergence of large datasets of melting temperatures for diverse natural proteins, it has become possible to train models to predict this quantity, and the literature has reported impressive performance values in terms of Spearman rho. The high correlation scores suggest that it should be possible to accurately predict melting temperature changes in engineered variants, and to reliably identify naturally thermostable proteins. However, in practice, results in these settings are often disappointing. In this paper, we explore this apparent discrepancy. We show that Spearman rho over cross-species data gives an overly optimistic impression of prediction performance, and that this metric reflects the ability to distinguish global differences in amino acid composition between species, rather than the specific effects of genetic variation. We proceed by investigating whether cross-species training on melting temperature is beneficial at all, compared to training specific models for each species. We address this question using four different transfer-learning approaches and a fine-tuning procedure. Surprisingly, we consistently find no benefit of cross-species training. We conclude that (1) current models for supervised prediction of melting temperature perform substantially worse than the literature suggests, and (2) that reliable transfer across species is still a challenging problem. An implementation of this work is available at https://github.com/deltadedirac/thermocontrast_tm.
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.