ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2025
Investigating the determinants of performance in machine learning for protein fitness prediction.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Graph-based representations in modern protein science.The Biochemical journal · 2026Review
- How far can you go? Extrapolating values of catalytic activity from known protein landscapes in natural and directed evolution.Chemical Society reviews · 2026Review
- Graph attention with structural features improves the generalizability of identifying functional sequences at a protein interface.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Biophysics-based protein language models for protein engineering.Nature methods · 2025Article
- Investigating the determinants of performance in machine learning for protein fitness prediction.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025Article
- Optimization of regulatory DNA with active learning.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Machine learning (ML) has revolutionized protein biology, solving long-standing problems in protein folding, scaffold generation, and function design tasks. A range of architectures have shown success on supervised protein fitness prediction tasks. Nevertheless, in the absence of rational approaches for evaluating which architectures are optimal for specific datasets and engineering tasks, architecture choice remains challenging. Here, we propose a framework for investigating the determinants of success for a range of ML architectures. Using simulated (the NK model) and empirical fitness landscapes, we measure sequence-fitness prediction along six key performance metrics: interpolation within the training domain, extrapolation outside the training domain, robustness to increasing epistasis/ruggedness, ability to perform positional extrapolation, robustness to sparse training data, and sensitivity to sequence length. We show that architectural differences between algorithms consistently affect performance against these metrics across both experimental and theoretical landscapes. Moreover, landscape ruggedness emerges as a primary determinant of the accuracy of sequence-fitness prediction. Our methodology and results provide a rational strategy for experimental data sampling, model selection, and evaluation rooted in fitness landscape theory-one that we hope will advance sequence-fitness prediction accuracy, with implications for protein engineering and variant functional prediction.
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.