Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40736745›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025

PLMFit: benchmarking transfer learning with protein language models for protein engineering.

Thomas Bikias, Evangelos Stamkopoulos, Sai T Reddy

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. 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. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Thomas BikiasDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0009-0003-5678-4350
Evangelos StamkopoulosDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland.
Sai T ReddyDepartment of Biosystems Science and Engineering, ETH Zurich, Basel, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-7038-5319

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein language models (PLMs) have emerged as a useful resource for protein engineering applications. Transfer learning (TL) leverages pre-trained parameters to extract features to train machine learning models or adjust the weights of PLMs for novel tasks via fine-tuning (FT) through back-propagation. TL methods have shown potential for enhancing protein predictions performance when paired with PLMs, however there is a notable lack of comparative analyses that benchmark TL methods applied to state-of-the-art PLMs, identify optimal strategies for transferring knowledge and determine the most suitable approach for specific tasks. Here, we report PLMFit, a benchmarking study that combines, three state-of-the-art PLMs (ESM2, ProGen2, ProteinBert), with three TL methods (feature extraction, low-rank adaptation, bottleneck adapters) for five protein engineering datasets. We conducted over >3150 in silico experiments, altering PLM sizes and layers, TL hyperparameters and different training procedures. Our experiments reveal three key findings: (i) utilizing a partial fraction of PLM for TL does not detrimentally impact performance, (ii) the choice between feature extraction (FE) and fine-tuning is primarily dictated by the amount and diversity of data, and (iii) FT is most effective when generalization is necessary and only limited data is available. We provide PLMFit as an open-source software package, serving as a valuable resource for the scientific community to facilitate the FE and FT of PLMs for various applications.

Indexed as

Machine LearningProtein EngineeringProteinsSoftwareAlgorithmsBenchmarkingProteinsbenchmarkingparameter efficient fine-tuningprotein engineeringprotein fitnessprotein language modelstransfer learning

Identifiers

PMID40736745
PMCPMC12309243

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.