ReviewCurrent opinion in structural biology2026
Steering generative models for protein design: Aligning and conditioning strategies.
Review in Current opinion in structural biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Generative artificial intelligence in animal genomics for smart agriculture: Applications, challenges, and future prospects.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Review
- Applications and limitations of AI tools in enzyme design.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Review
- Property guidance for protein sequence generative models with ProteinGuide.Nature biotechnology · 2026Article
- Bridging Algorithms and Biocatalysis: Perspectives on AI-Supported Enzyme Engineering.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
Generative artificial intelligence models learn probability distributions from data and produce novel samples that capture the salient properties of their training sets. Proteins are particularly attractive for such approaches given their abundant data and the versatility of their representations, ranging from sequences to structures and functions. This versatility has motivated the rapid development of generative models for protein design, enabling the generation of functional proteins and enzymes with unprecedented success. However, because these models mirror their training distribution, they tend to sample from its most probable modes, while low-probability regions, often encoding valuable properties, remain underexplored. To address this challenge, recent work has proposed strategies for steering generative models toward user-specified properties. In this review, we survey and categorize these strategies, distinguishing approaches that modify model parameters, such as reinforcement learning or supervised fine-tuning, from those that keep the model's parameters fixed, including conditional generation, retrieval-augmented strategies, Bayesian guidance, and tailored sampling methods. Together, these developments are beginning to enable the steering of generative models toward proteins with desired properties.
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.