Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 41 references

ProtGO: A Transformer based Fusion Model for accurately predicting Gene Ontology (GO) Terms from full scale Protein Sequences

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ProtGO, a transformer-based fusion model fine-tuned from ProtBert, annotates full protein sequences with Gene Ontology terms more accurately than Proteinfer and ProteinferEN on both random and clustered dataset splits.

desk verdict Fusion of three ProtBert heads is a plausible engineering contribution, but the SOTA claim rests on an unstated baseline protocol and a reduced top-100 label set. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.05776 v1 pith:KIRBKSYK submitted 2024-12-08 cs.LG q-bio.GN

Azwad Tamir , Jiann-Shiun Yuan This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.LGq-bio.GN
keywords geneontologyannotationproteinfunctionpredictiontransformerfusionmodellanguagemulti-labelclassificationselectivefine-tuningclustereddatasplit
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

ProtGO is a transformer-based fusion model that predicts Gene Ontology (GO) terms, covering biological process, molecular function, and cellular component, directly from full protein sequences. The paper claims it beats the Proteinfer and ProteinferEN systems by roughly 3 percentage points on a random split of a manually curated protein database and by around 7 points on a clustered split where training and test sequences share little similarity. The model is a single lightweight network rather than an ensemble, using three selectively fine-tuned transformers, one per GO aspect, whose predictions are combined. If the claim holds, newly sequenced proteins could receive accurate functional annotations from sequence alone at a fraction of the compute used by current benchmark methods.

What carries the argument

The architecture is a fusion of three transformer submodules, Prot_BP, Prot_MF, and Prot_CC, one for each GO aspect. Each submodule starts from the pretrained ProtBert protein language model (30 encoder layers, model dimension 1024, multihead attention) and is selectively fine-tuned on sequences labeled only with that aspect's top-100 GO terms: some layers are frozen and others updated, following the authors' earlier enzyme-number model. A protein sequence is tokenized into amino-acid tokens; positional, token, and segment embeddings are summed and fed through the encoder, mean-pooled, and passed to a classification layer. The three submodule outputs are concatenated to produce the final multi-label prediction, with cross-entropy loss and an Adam optimizer during fine-tuning.

What would settle it

Re-run Proteinfer and ProteinferEN on the same top-100 per-aspect GO label sets and the same random and clustered splits used for ProtGO, with the threshold fixed at the same value; if their accuracy and F1 match or exceed the reported ProtGO numbers, the state-of-the-art claim collapses. A quicker check is to read the original Proteinfer evaluation and see whether its published numbers were computed over the full GO vocabulary rather than the 100-label subset.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that one transformer fusion model can annotate full-length protein sequences with the 100 most frequent GO terms per aspect at higher accuracy than Proteinfer and ProteinferEN, while remaining robust to sequence length. On the random split it reports accuracies of 86.06% for biological process, 94.60% for molecular function, and 78.30% for cellular component; on the harder clustered split the corresponding numbers are 82.16%, 91.51%, and 73.28%. The margins over ProteinferEN are roughly 3 points on the random split and 6.6 to 7.6 points on the clustered split, with F1 and precision also higher. ROC AUC is reported above 99% on the random split and above 98% on the clustered split, and test accuracy stays approximately flat up to 1,000 amino acids, the truncation length used in the study.

Load-bearing premise

The state-of-the-art claim rests on the assumption that Proteinfer and ProteinferEN numbers were produced under exactly the same evaluation protocol as ProtGO, meaning the same top-100 GO labels per aspect, the same data splits, the same accuracy metric, and the same decision threshold, which the paper does not explicitly confirm.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single ProtGO model could replace multi-model ensembles for GO annotation, using one GPU with about 3.5 GB of memory and roughly 80 hours of training while reporting higher accuracy.
  • The clustered-split results imply the model generalizes to protein families with little sequence similarity to its training data, which matters for uncharacterized or newly discovered sequences.
  • Stable accuracy up to the 1,000-residue truncation suggests the model can be applied to long proteins, and raising the truncation threshold would likely improve very-long-sequence performance.
  • Near-perfect ROC AUC indicates the model separates positive from negative GO assignments well enough to adjust precision and recall through a decision threshold, addressing the recall gap observed against ProteinferEN.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the evaluation is restricted to the top-100 GO terms per aspect, the reported accuracy does not cover the long tail of rare GO terms; extending to that tail is a harder test and would likely reduce the margins.
  • The comparison assumes Proteinfer and ProteinferEN were evaluated under identical conditions, such as the same 100-label vocabulary, the same splits, the same accuracy definition, and the same threshold, and the paper does not document those details; a fair replication is needed before the state-of-the-art claim is taken at face value.
  • The same three-headed fusion design could be ported to other annotation tasks, such as Enzyme Commission numbers or subcellular localization, where whole-sequence context matters.
  • A natural stress test is to run the model on unreviewed, automatically generated protein sequences, where labels are noisier and the distribution differs from the curated training set.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes ProtGO, a transformer-based fusion model that combines three ProtBert-derived modules to predict Gene Ontology (GO) terms for the biological process, molecular function, and cellular component aspects from full-length protein sequences. The model is trained and evaluated on SwissProt random and clustered splits using only the top-100 most frequent GO terms per aspect, and is compared against Proteinfer and ProteinferEN in terms of accuracy, F1 score, precision, and recall. The authors report state-of-the-art performance, with gains of roughly 3-7% in accuracy over the benchmarks, plus ROC curves and a sequence-length robustness analysis.

Significance. If the central comparison were like-for-like and fully specified, a single lightweight transformer-based model that outperforms Proteinfer and ProteinferEN on three GO aspects across two challenging splits would be a practically valuable contribution to automated protein annotation. The paper has some strengths: it evaluates on an external benchmark, addresses computational efficiency, and provides a sequence-length analysis. However, as written, the central empirical claim is not adequately supported because the baseline protocol, evaluation metric, and several architectural details are unspecified or inconsistent. The results may still be of interest, but the current manuscript does not provide enough information to judge or reproduce them.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section 2.4, Tables 3 and 4] The comparison to Proteinfer and ProteinferEN is not specified as a like-for-like evaluation. The paper never states whether the baselines were retrained on the same top-100 GO label set per aspect, the same random and clustered SwissProt splits, the same accuracy definition, or the same decision threshold. If the baseline numbers are taken from Proteinfer's original full-GO evaluation, then Tables 3 and 4 compare ProtGO on a reduced 100-label task against results from a much harder full-ontology task, and the reported gains would reflect task narrowing rather than superior modeling. This is load-bearing because the abstract, introduction, and conclusion all rest on the state-of-the-art claim.
  2. [Section 3, Tables 3 and 4] The accuracy metric is never defined. Since GO term prediction is a multi-label problem, 'accuracy' could mean exact match accuracy, per-label accuracy, micro- or macro-averaged accuracy, or Jaccard-style overlap. Without a definition, the reported percentages and the 3-7% gains are not interpretable. The paper also provides no confidence intervals, error bars, or repeated-run variability, so even the point estimates are not statistically grounded.
  3. [Section 2.2 and Section 3.2] The abstract and title claim prediction of GO terms from 'full-scale protein sequences' and state-of-the-art accuracy, but the evaluation uses only the top 100 most populous GO terms per aspect, and sequences are truncated at 1000 tokens. This restricts the task to a small subset of the GO vocabulary and to a limited sequence-length range. The paper needs to clarify what 'full-scale' means and explain how the truncated, top-100 evaluation supports the broad claim.
  4. [Section 2.3 vs. Section 2.4] The model architecture is described inconsistently: Section 2.3 states that the attention layers have 12 heads, while Section 2.4 states that the ProtBert module includes 16 attention heads. This is a concrete reproducibility-relevant contradiction that must be resolved, along with a precise specification of which layers are frozen and which are fine-tuned.
  5. [Section 2.4 and Section 3] No code, model checkpoints, evaluation scripts, or data-split definitions are provided. The paper also does not report the decision threshold used for evaluation or the source of the Proteinfer baseline numbers. For a paper whose central claim is empirical superiority over existing systems, these omissions prevent verification and make the state-of-the-art assertion unreproducible as written.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The phrase 'not unaffected by sequence length' is a double negative and appears to contradict the claim of negligible dependency on sequence length; it should be reworded.
  2. [Section 2.3] There is a typo: 'positional enbeddings' should be 'positional embeddings'.
  3. [Section 3] The text says 'Table 4 shows the performance of the proposed model on all three GO aspects ... on the random split dataset,' but Table 4 is labeled 'Clustered Split dataset.' The table cross-references need to be corrected.
  4. [Section 3.1] The ROC-curve figure is referenced but not actually included in the text, and the AUC values are reported without showing the corresponding curves or axis labels.
  5. [Section 2.4] The sentence 'An Negative Log Likelihood (NLL) loss function' contains a grammatical error and should be 'A Negative Log Likelihood.'
  6. [Section 2.4] The decision threshold is described as a hyperparameter 'set to the default value for all algorithms,' but the actual value is never given, nor is it stated what default threshold the baselines use.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claim is an external benchmark comparison, and the only self-citation is a non-load-bearing implementation detail.

full rationale

ProtGO is an empirical modeling paper whose central claim is that a transformer fusion model achieves state-of-the-art GO-term prediction accuracy compared with Proteinfer and ProteinferEN. That claim is supported by held-out test-set evaluations on random and clustered SwissProt splits in Tables 3 and 4, i.e., against external baselines rather than by derivation from the model's own outputs. No equation or construction in the paper defines a predicted quantity in terms of the fitted target, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The only self-citation is the statement that 'The layers which were frozen to get the most efficiency for the ProtBert modules were referenced from [36]', referring to the authors' prior ProtEC work, and the introductory note that 'We have previously developed a ProtBert[33] based model named ProtEC[36]'. These are implementation choices and background claims; they are not load-bearing in establishing the reported accuracy advantage. The restriction to the top-100 most populous GO terms per aspect and the lack of detail about the baselines' exact protocol are legitimate evaluation-validity concerns, but they concern whether the comparison is like-for-like, not whether the results reduce to their inputs by definition. Therefore no circularity is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central empirical claim rests on standard transfer-learning assumptions and several unstated evaluation choices, including the top-100 label cutoff, truncation length, and decision threshold. No new physical or conceptual entities are introduced, and no derivation is offered.

free parameters (5)
  • top-100 GO terms per aspect = 100 per aspect
    The label set is truncated to the 100 most frequent GO terms per aspect in Section 2.2; all reported results and the state-of-the-art comparison depend on this reduced task.
  • sequence truncation length = 1000 tokens
    Input sequences are truncated at 1000 tokens in Section 3.2; the paper claims robustness to length even though accuracy declines beyond this truncation point.
  • decision threshold = unstated default
    Section 3 says the threshold is set to the default value for all algorithms, but the value is never specified; precision, recall, and accuracy all depend on it.
  • learning rate = 5e-4
    Section 2.4 fixes an initial learning rate of 5e-4 with no reported search; the final model depends on this choice.
  • frozen-layer selection = referenced from prior ProtEC work
    Section 2.4 states that the frozen layers are referenced from the authors' earlier ProtEC paper, but the specific layers are not described here; performance depends on this unstated choice.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption UniProt SwissProt GO annotations are accurate enough to serve as ground truth.
    Section 2.2 uses SwissProt labels as reliable training targets; label noise or incomplete annotations would bias the reported accuracy.
  • domain assumption Pretrained ProtBert representations transfer to GO prediction after fine-tuning.
    Section 2.4 relies on transfer learning without evidence that pretrained protein language model features capture GO-relevant motifs.
  • ad hoc to paper The top-100 most frequent GO terms per aspect form a meaningful benchmark for GO prediction.
    Section 2.2 discards all rare GO terms and never justifies that this truncated label set represents the full GO prediction task.
  • domain assumption The Uniref-based clustered split prevents sequence leakage between training and test sets.
    Section 2.2 claims clusters have minimal shared segments, but no cluster identity or leakage statistics are reported.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of ProtGO: A Transformer based Fusion Model for accurately predicting Gene Ontology (GO) Terms from full scale Protein Sequences." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KIRBKSYK

@misc{pith2026241205776,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: ProtGO: A Transformer based Fusion Model for accurately predicting Gene Ontology (GO) Terms from full scale Protein Sequences},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KIRBKSYK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.05776}
}
read the original abstract

Recent developments in next generation sequencing technology have led to the creation of extensive, open-source protein databases consisting of hundreds of millions of sequences. To render these sequences applicable in biomedical applications, they must be meticulously annotated by wet lab testing or extracting them from existing literature. Over the last few years, researchers have developed numerous automatic annotation systems, particularly deep learning models based on machine learning and artificial intelligence, to address this issue. In this work, we propose a transformer-based fusion model capable of predicting Gene Ontology (GO) terms from full-scale protein sequences, achieving state-of-the-art accuracy compared to other contemporary machine learning annotation systems. The approach performs particularly well on clustered split datasets, which comprise training and testing samples originating from distinct distributions that are structurally diverse. This demonstrates that the model is able to understand both short and long term dependencies within the enzyme's structure and can precisely identify the motifs associated with the various GO terms. Furthermore, the technique is lightweight and less computationally expensive compared to the benchmark methods, while at the same time not unaffected by sequence length, rendering it appropriate for diverse applications with varying sequence lengths.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.05776 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Block diagram illustrating the detailed architecture of the proposed model of ProtGO. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left: Averaged ROC curve of the ProtGO model for the random split dataset. Right: Averaged ROC curve of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Left: Frequency distribution of the input protein sequence lengths in the dataset. Right: Variability of ProtGO [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 36 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    UniProt: a worldwide hub of protein knowledge

    The UniProt Consortium. UniProt: a worldwide hub of protein knowledge. Nucleic Acids Research, 47(D1):D506– D515, 11 2018

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    Basic local alignment search tool

    S F Altschul, W Gish, W Miller, E W Myers, and D J Lipman. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol., 215(3):403–410, October 1990

    work page 1990

  3. [3]

    Hidden markov models in computational biology

    A Krogh, M Brown, I S Mian, K Sjölander, and D Haussler. Hidden markov models in computational biology. applications to protein modeling. J. Mol. Biol., 235(5):1501–1531, February 1994

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    Profile hidden Markov models

    S R Eddy. Profile hidden Markov models. Bioinformatics, 14(9):755–763, 10 1998

    work page 1998

  5. [5]

    The InterPro protein families and domains database: 20 years on

    Matthias Blum, Hsin-Yu Chang, Sara Chuguransky, Tiago Grego, Swaathi Kandasaamy, Alex Mitchell, Gift Nuka, Typhaine Paysan-Lafosse, Matloob Qureshi, Shriya Raj, Lorna Richardson, Gustavo A Salazar, Lowri Williams, Peer Bork, Alan Bridge, Julian Gough, Daniel H Haft, Ivica Letunic, Aron Marchler-Bauer, Huaiyu Mi, Darren A Natale, Marco Necci, Christine A O...

    work page 2021

  6. [6]

    The Pfam protein families database in 2019

    Sara El-Gebali, Jaina Mistry, Alex Bateman, Sean R Eddy, Aurélien Luciani, Simon C Potter, Matloob Qureshi, Lorna J Richardson, Gustavo A Salazar, Alfredo Smart, Erik L L Sonnhammer, Layla Hirsh, Lisanna Paladin, Damiano Piovesan, Silvio C E Tosatto, and Robert D Finn. The Pfam protein families database in 2019. Nucleic Acids Research, 47(D1):D427–D432, 10 2018

    work page 2019

  7. [7]

    Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang

    Karl Weiss, Taghi M. Khoshgoftaar, and DingDing Wang. A survey of transfer learning. Journal of Big Data, 3(1):9, May 2016

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    DeepGO: predicting protein functions from sequence and interactions using a deep ontology-aware classifier

    Maxat Kulmanov, Mohammed Asif Khan, and Robert Hoehndorf. DeepGO: predicting protein functions from sequence and interactions using a deep ontology-aware classifier. Bioinformatics, 34(4):660–668, 10 2017

    work page 2017

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Ecpred: a tool for the prediction of the enzymatic functions of protein sequences based on the ec nomenclature

    Alperen Dalkiran, Ahmet Sureyya Rifaioglu, Maria Jesus Martin, Rengul Cetin-Atalay, V olkan Atalay, and Tunca Do˘gan. Ecpred: a tool for the prediction of the enzymatic functions of protein sequences based on the ec nomenclature. BMC Bioinformatics, 19(1):334, Sep 2018

    2018

  2. [10]

    ProLanGO: Protein function prediction using neural machine translation based on a recurrent neural network

    Renzhi Cao, Colton Freitas, Leong Chan, Miao Sun, Haiqing Jiang, and Zhangxin Chen. ProLanGO: Protein function prediction using neural machine translation based on a recurrent neural network. Molecules, 22(10), October 2017

    2017

  3. [11]

    DeepLoc: prediction of protein subcellular localization using deep learning

    José Juan Almagro Armenteros, Casper Kaae Sønderby, Søren Kaae Sønderby, Henrik Nielsen, and Ole Winther. DeepLoc: prediction of protein subcellular localization using deep learning. Bioinformatics, 33(21):3387–3395, 07 2017. 9 KITE-DDI

    2017

  4. [12]

    Deep semantic protein representation for annotation, discovery, and engineering

    Ariel S Schwartz, Gregory J Hannum, Zach R Dwiel, Michael E Smoot, Ana R Grant, Jason M Knight, Scott A Becker, Jonathan R Eads, Matthew C LaFave, Harini Eavani, Yinyin Liu, Arjun K Bansal, and Toby H Richardson. Deep semantic protein representation for annotation, discovery, ...

    2018

  5. [13]

    Deepred: Automated protein function prediction with multi-task feed-forward deep neural networks

    Ahmet Sureyya Rifaioglu, Tunca Do˘gan, Maria Jesus Martin, Rengul Cetin-Atalay, and V olkan Atalay. Deepred: Automated protein function prediction with multi-task feed-forward deep neural networks. Scientific Reports, 9(1):7344, May 2019

    2019

  6. [14]

    DEEPre: sequence-based enzyme EC number prediction by deep learning

    Yu Li, Sheng Wang, Ramzan Umarov, Bingqing Xie, Ming Fan, Lihua Li, and Xin Gao. DEEPre: sequence-based enzyme EC number prediction by deep learning. Bioinformatics, 34(5):760–769, 10 2017

    2017

  7. [15]

    DeepSF: deep convolutional neural network for mapping protein sequences to folds

    Jie Hou, Badri Adhikari, and Jianlin Cheng. DeepSF: deep convolutional neural network for mapping protein sequences to folds. Bioinformatics, 34(8):1295–1303, 12 2017

    2017

  8. [16]

    HECNet: a hierarchical approach to enzyme function classification using a Siamese Triplet Network

    Safyan Aman Memon, Kinaan Aamir Khan, and Hammad Naveed. HECNet: a hierarchical approach to enzyme function classification using a Siamese Triplet Network. Bioinformatics, 36(17):4583–4589, 05 2020

    2020

  9. [17]

    A hierarchical deep learning based approach for multi-functional enzyme classification

    Kinaan Aamir Khan, Safyan Aman Memon, and Hammad Naveed. A hierarchical deep learning based approach for multi-functional enzyme classification. Protein Sci., 30(9):1935–1945, September 2021

    1935

  10. [18]

    Natália D

    Riccardo Concu and M. Natália D. S. Cordeiro. Alignment-free method to predict enzyme classes and subclasses. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 20(21), 2019

    2019

  11. [19]

    mldeepre: Multi-functional enzyme function prediction with hierarchical multi-label deep learning

    Zhenzhen Zou, Shuye Tian, Xin Gao, and Yu Li. mldeepre: Multi-functional enzyme function prediction with hierarchical multi-label deep learning. Frontiers in Genetics, 9, 2019

    2019

  12. [20]

    End-to-end differentiable learning of protein structure

    Mohammed AlQuraishi. End-to-end differentiable learning of protein structure. Cell Systems, 8(4):292–301.e3, 2019

    2019

  13. [21]

    Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Chongli Qin, Augustin Žídek, Alexander W

    Andrew W. Senior, Richard Evans, John Jumper, James Kirkpatrick, Laurent Sifre, Tim Green, Chongli Qin, Augustin Žídek, Alexander W. R. Nelson, Alex Bridgland, Hugo Penedones, Stig Petersen, Karen Simonyan, Steve Crossan, Pushmeet Kohli, David T. Jones, David Silver, Koray Kav...

    2020

  14. [22]

    Msa transformer

    Roshan M Rao, Jason Liu, Robert Verkuil, Joshua Meier, John Canny, Pieter Abbeel, Tom Sercu, and Alexander Rives. Msa transformer. In Marina Meila and Tong Zhang, editors, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, volume 139 of Proceedings of Machin...

    2021

  15. [23]

    Energy-based models for atomic-resolution protein conformations

    Yilun Du, Joshua Meier, Jerry Ma, Rob Fergus, and Alexander Rives. Energy-based models for atomic-resolution protein conformations. CoRR, abs/2004.13167, 2020

    2004 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Improved protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations

    Jianyi Yang, Ivan Anishchenko, Hahnbeom Park, Zhenling Peng, Sergey Ovchinnikov, and David Baker. Improved protein structure prediction using predicted interresidue orientations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(3):1496–1503, 2020

    2020

  17. [25]

    Alley, Kevin M

    Surojit Biswas, Grigory Khimulya, Ethan C. Alley, Kevin M. Esvelt, and George M. Church. Low-n protein engineering with data-efficient deep learning. Nature Methods, 18(4):389–396, Apr 2021

    2021

  18. [26]

    Eguchi, Po-Ssu Huang, and Richard Socher

    Ali Madani, Bryan McCann, Nikhil Naik, Nitish Shirish Keskar, Namrata Anand, Raphael R. Eguchi, Po-Ssu Huang, and Richard Socher. Progen: Language modeling for protein generation. bioRxiv, 2020

    2020

  19. [27]

    Pellock, Tamuka M

    Ivan Anishchenko, Samuel J. Pellock, Tamuka M. Chidyausiku, Theresa A. Ramelot, Sergey Ovchinnikov, Jingzhou Hao, Khushboo Bafna, Christoffer Norn, Alex Kang, Asim K. Bera, Frank DiMaio, Lauren Carter, Cameron M. Chow, Gaetano T. Montelione, and David Baker. De novo protein de...

    2021

  20. [28]

    Yang, Zachary Wu, and Frances H

    Kevin K. Yang, Zachary Wu, and Frances H. Arnold. Machine-learning-guided directed evolution for protein engineering. Nature Methods, 16(8):687–694, Aug 2019

    2019

  21. [29]

    Machine learning in enzyme engineering

    Stanislav Mazurenko, Zbynek Prokop, and Jiri Damborsky. Machine learning in enzyme engineering. ACS Catalysis, 10(2):1210–1223, Jan 2020

    2020

  22. [30]

    Deep learning enables high-quality and high-throughput prediction of enzyme commission numbers

    Jae Yong Ryu, Hyun Uk Kim, and Sang Yup Lee. Deep learning enables high-quality and high-throughput prediction of enzyme commission numbers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(28):13996– 14001, 2019

    2019

  23. [31]

    Bileschi, David Belanger, Drew H

    Maxwell L. Bileschi, David Belanger, Drew H. Bryant, Theo Sanderson, Brandon Carter, D. Sculley, Alex Bateman, Mark A. DePristo, and Lucy J. Colwell. Using deep learning to annotate the protein universe. Nature Biotechnology, 40(6):932–937, Jun 2022. 10 KITE-DDI

    2022

  24. [32]

    Bileschi, David Belanger, and Lucy Colwell

    David Dohan, Andreea Gane, Maxwell L. Bileschi, David Belanger, and Lucy Colwell. Improving protein function annotation via unsupervised pre-training: Robustness, efficiency, and insights. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM SIGKDD Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, K...

  25. [33]

    ProtTrans: Toward understanding the language of life through self-supervised learning

    Ahmed Elnaggar, Michael Heinzinger, Christian Dallago, Ghalia Rehawi, Yu Wang, Llion Jones, Tom Gibbs, Tamas Feher, Christoph Angerer, Martin Steinegger, Debsindhu Bhowmik, and Burkhard Rost. ProtTrans: Toward understanding the language of life through self-supervised learning...

    2022

  26. [34]

    ProteinBERT: a universal deep- learning model of protein sequence and function

    Nadav Brandes, Dan Ofer, Yam Peleg, Nadav Rappoport, and Michal Linial. ProteinBERT: a universal deep- learning model of protein sequence and function. Bioinformatics, 38(8):2102–2110, 02 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    Bileschi, David Belanger, and Lucy J

    Theo Sanderson, Maxwell L. Bileschi, David Belanger, and Lucy J. Colwell. Proteinfer: deep networks for protein functional inference. bioRxiv, 2021

    2021

  28. [36]

    Protec: A transformer based deep learning system for accurate annotation of enzyme commission numbers

    Azwad Tamir, Milad Salem, and Jiann-Shiun Yuan. Protec: A transformer based deep learning system for accurate annotation of enzyme commission numbers. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 20(6):3691–3702, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches

    Baris E Suzek, Yuqi Wang, Hongzhan Huang, Peter B McGarvey, Cathy H Wu, and UniProt Consortium. UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches. Bioinformatics, 31(6):926–932, March 2015

    2015

  30. [38]

    Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing

    Thomas Wolf, Lysandre Debut, Victor Sanh, Julien Chaumond, Clement Delangue, Anthony Moi, Pierric Cistac, Tim Rault, Rémi Louf, Morgan Funtowicz, et al. Huggingface’s transformers: State-of-the-art natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:1910.03771, 2019

    1910 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pretrained transformers as universal computation engines

    Kevin Lu, Aditya Grover, Pieter Abbeel, and Igor Mordatch. Pretrained transformers as universal computation engines. arXiv preprint arXiv:2103.05247, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Ampdeep: hemolytic activity prediction of antimicrobial peptides using transfer learning

    Milad Salem, Arash Keshavarzi Arshadi, and Jiann Shiun Yuan. Ampdeep: hemolytic activity prediction of antimicrobial peptides using transfer learning. BMC Bioinformatics, 23(1):389, Sep 2022. 11

    2022

  33. [2021]

    Association for Computing Machinery

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.