Semantic search using protein large language models detects class II microcins in bacterial genomes.

Class II microcins are antimicrobial peptides that have shown some potential as novel antibiotics. However, to date only ten class II microcins have been described, and discovery of novel microcins has been hampered by their short length and high sequence divergence. Here, we ask if we can use numerical embeddings generated by protein large language models to detect microcins in bacterial genome assemblies and whether this method can outperform sequence-based methods such as BLAST. We find that embeddings detect known class II microcins much more reliably than does BLAST and that any two microcins tend to have a small distance in embedding space even though they typically are highly diverged at the sequence level. In datasets of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella spp., and Enterobacter spp. genomes, we further find novel putative microcins that were previously missed by sequence-based search methods.

Two sequence- and two structure-based ML models have learned different aspects of protein biochemistry.

Deep learning models are seeing increased use as methods to predict mutational effects or allowed mutations in proteins. The models commonly used for these purposes include large language models (LLMs) and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). These two model types have very different architectures and are commonly trained on different representations of proteins. LLMs make use of the transformer architecture and are trained purely on protein sequences whereas 3D CNNs are trained on voxelized representations of local protein structure. While comparable overall prediction accuracies have been reported for both types of models, it is not known to what extent these models make comparable specific predictions and/or generalize protein biochemistry in similar ways. Here, we perform a systematic comparison of two LLMs and two structure-based models (CNNs) and show that the different model types have distinct strengths and weaknesses. The overall prediction accuracies are largely uncorrelated between the sequence- and structure-based models. Overall, the two structure-based models are better at predicting buried aliphatic and hydrophobic residues whereas the two LLMs are better at predicting solvent-exposed polar and charged amino acids. Finally, we find that a combined model that takes the individual model predictions as input can leverage these individual model strengths and results in significantly improved overall prediction accuracy.

Two sequence- and two structure-based ML models have learned different aspects of protein biochemistry.

Deep learning models are seeing increased use as methods to predict mutational effects or allowed mutations in proteins. The models commonly used for these purposes include large language models (LLMs) and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). These two model types have very different architectures and are commonly trained on different representations of proteins. LLMs make use of the transformer architecture and are trained purely on protein sequences whereas 3D CNNs are trained on voxelized representations of local protein structure. While comparable overall prediction accuracies have been reported for both types of models, it is not known to what extent these models make comparable specific predictions and/or generalize protein biochemistry in similar ways. Here, we perform a systematic comparison of two LLMs and two structure-based models (CNNs) and show that the different model types have distinct strengths and weaknesses. The overall prediction accuracies are largely uncorrelated between the sequence- and structure-based models. Overall, the two structure-based models are better at predicting buried aliphatic and hydrophobic residues whereas the two LLMs are better at predicting solvent-exposed polar and charged amino acids. Finally, we find that a combined model that takes the individual model predictions as input can leverage these individual model strengths and results in significantly improved overall prediction accuracy.

Using machine learning to predict the effects and consequences of mutations in proteins.

Machine and deep learning approaches can leverage the increasingly available massive datasets of protein sequences, structures, and mutational effects to predict variants with improved fitness. Many different approaches are being developed, but systematic benchmarking studies indicate that even though the specifics of the machine learning algorithms matter, the more important constraint comes from the data availability and quality utilized during training. In cases where little experimental data are available, unsupervised and self-supervised pre-training with generic protein datasets can still perform well after subsequent refinement via hybrid or transfer learning approaches. Overall, recent progress in this field has been staggering, and machine learning approaches will likely play a major role in future breakthroughs in protein biochemistry and engineering.

Learning the local landscape of protein structures with convolutional neural networks.

One fundamental problem of protein biochemistry is to predict protein structure from amino acid sequence. The inverse problem, predicting either entire sequences or individual mutations that are consistent with a given protein structure, has received much less attention even though it has important applications in both protein engineering and evolutionary biology. Here, we ask whether 3D convolutional neural networks (3D CNNs) can learn the local fitness landscape of protein structure to reliably predict either the wild-type amino acid or the consensus in a multiple sequence alignment from the local structural context surrounding site of interest. We find that the network can predict wild type with good accuracy, and that network confidence is a reliable measure of whether a given prediction is likely going to be correct or not. Predictions of consensus are less accurate and are primarily driven by whether or not the consensus matches the wild type. Our work suggests that high-confidence mis-predictions of the wild type may identify sites that are primed for mutation and likely targets for protein engineering.