Fine-tuning protein language models boosts predictions across diverse tasks
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Prediction methods inputting embeddings from protein language models have reached or even surpassed state-of-the-art performance on many protein prediction tasks. In natural language processing fine-tuning large language models has become the de facto standard. In contrast, most protein language model-based protein predictions do not back-propagate to the language model. Here, we compare the fine-tuning of three state-of-the-art models (ESM2, ProtT5, Ankh) on eight different tasks. Two results stand out. Firstly, task-specific supervised fine-tuning almost always improves downstream predictions. Secondly, parameter-efficient fine-tuning can reach similar improvements consuming substantially fewer resources at up to 4.5-fold acceleration of training over fine-tuning full models. Our results suggest to always try fine-tuning, in particular for problems with small datasets, such as for fitness landscape predictions of a single protein. For ease of adaptability, we provide easy-to-use notebooks to fine-tune all models used during this work for per-protein (pooling) and per-residue prediction tasks.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 73 · Cited by 229
- Authors
- Schmirler, R., Heinzinger, M., & Rost, B.
- Affiliations
- AbbVie (Germany) (DE)
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Schmirler, Robert
- Venue
- Nature Communications
- Published
- 2024-08-28
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 7407-7407
- ISSN
- 2041-1723 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11358375
- OpenAlex
- W4401966068
- Cited by
- 229
- References
- 73
- Citations by year
- 2026: 107 · 2025: 106 · 2024: 16
- FWCI
- 31.17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Nature Communications (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
- mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Technische Universität München
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG-GZ: RO1320/4-1)
- AbbVie Inc. | AbbVie Deutschland
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
- Keywords
- protein language models, fine-tuning, ESM-2, ProtT5, ankh, parameter-efficient fine-tuning, protein property prediction, protein embeddings
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Natural Language Processing, Proteins, Computational Biology, Databases, Protein
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review