Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42601461›Full record

ArticleNature methods2026

Aligning protein-generative models to experimental fitness with ProteinDPO.

Talal Widatalla, Ashir A Borah, Samuel H King, Claudia L Driscoll, Rafael Rafailov, Brian L Hie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

6 authors.

Talal WidatallaStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Ashir A BorahArc Institute, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Samuel H KingStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1260-5045
Claudia L DriscollStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Rafael RafailovStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
Brian L HieStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. brianhie@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3224-8142

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biological generative models can predict biological functions without task-specific training data but often under-perform specialized models. This is due to a fundamental 'alignment gap', where the rules learned during unsupervised training are not related to the function of interest. Here we demonstrate how to provide task-specific information without losing the general knowledge learned during pretraining by using direct preference optimization to align a structure-conditioned protein language model to preferentially generate stable protein sequences. Our aligned model, ProteinDPO, achieves stability prediction competitive to task-specific models and consistently outperforms unsupervised and fine-tuned versions of the model. Notably, ProteinDPO generalizes beyond its training data to enable stabilization and improved binding affinity prediction of large multichain protein complexes. When applied to stabilization of the hemagglutinin trimer, a primary component of influenza vaccines, ~80% of designs achieve increased or similar stability compared with the native hemagglutinin and up to 32 °C improvements from recently emerged mammalian strains. Our results demonstrate how to augment generative models with biophysical information and, more broadly, provide a general framework for the alignment of biological foundation models.

Indexed as

ProteinsSequence AlignmentAnimalsGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHemagglutinin Glycoproteins, Influenza VirusInfluenza VaccinesModels, MolecularProtein StabilityHemagglutinin Glycoproteins, Influenza VirusInfluenza VaccinesProteins

Identifiers

PMID42601461
PMCPMC13541614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.