ArticleGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2026
Benchmarking Generative AI Protein Models Reveals Differences Between Structural and Sequence-based Approaches.
Article in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-enabled discovery and biochemical optimization of minibinders targeting cancer cell-surface proteins.Nature communications · 2026Article
- From Prediction to Creation: Generative Plant Design.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Systematic evaluation of predictors for binding free energy changes upon mutations in protein complexes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Recent advances in artificial intelligence have led to the development of generative models for de novo protein design. In this study, we compared 13 state-of-the-art generative protein models, assessing their ability to produce feasible, diverse, and novel protein monomers. Structural diffusion models generally create designs with higher confidence in predicted structures and more biologically plausible energy distributions, but exhibit limited diversity and strong sequence biases. Conversely, protein language models generate more diverse and novel designs but with lower structural confidence. We also evaluated the ability of these models to generate unique proteins, conditionally based on the tobacco etch virus (TEV) protease. Generative models are successful in producing functional enzymes, albeit with diminished activity compared to the wild-type TEV. Our systematic benchmarking provides a foundation for evaluating and selecting generative protein models, while highlighting the complementary strengths of different generative paradigms. This framework will facilitate informed application of these tools for biomedical engineering and 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.