Benchmarking protein language models for protein crystallization
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The problem of protein structure determination is usually solved by X-ray crystallography. Several in silico deep learning methods have been developed to overcome the high attrition rate, cost of experiments and extensive trial-and-error settings, for predicting the crystallization propensities of proteins based on their sequences. In this work, we benchmark the power of open protein language models (PLMs) through the TRILL platform, a be-spoke framework democratizing the usage of PLMs for the task of predicting crystallization propensities of proteins. By comparing LightGBM / XGBoost classifiers built on the average embedding representations of proteins learned by different PLMs, such as ESM2, Ankh, ProtT5-XL, ProstT5, xTrimoPGLM, SaProt with the performance of state-of-the-art sequence-based methods like DeepCrystal, ATTCrys and CLPred, we identify the most effective methods for predicting crystallization outcomes. The LightGBM classifiers utilizing embeddings from ESM2 model with 30 and 36 transformer layers and 150 and 3000 million parameters respectively have performance gains by 3- $$5\%$$ than all compared models for various evaluation metrics, including AUPR (Area Under Precision-Recall Curve), AUC (Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve), and F1 on independent test sets. Furthermore, we fine-tune the ProtGPT2 model available via TRILL to generate crystallizable proteins. Starting with 3000 generated proteins and through a step of filtration processes including consensus of all open PLM-based classifiers, sequence identity through CD-HIT, secondary structure compatibility, aggregation screening, homology search and foldability evaluation, we identified a set of 5 novel proteins as potentially crystallizable.
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.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,523 · see citing works
Highly accurate protein structure prediction for the human proteome
Tunyasuvunakool, K., Adler, J., Wu, Z., Green, T., Zielinski, M., Žídek, A., Bridgland, A., Cowie, A., Meyer, C., Laydon, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03828-1 · Cited by 3,025 · cited 3× · see citing works
“ProstT5 exemplifies how language modeling techniques and transformers can be used to leverage the wealth of information from protein structure databases such as AFDB.”
InfluentialProtTrans: Toward Understanding the Language of Life Through Self-Supervised Learning
Elnaggar, A., Heinzinger, M., Dallago, C., Rehawi, G., Wang, Y., Jones, L., Gibbs, T., Feher, T., Angerer, C., Steinegger, M., et al. (2022) · IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tpami.2021.3095381 · Cited by 2,329 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Ankh is pre-trained on the UniRef50 dataset [46], that provides more variability and representation compared to UniRef100 [46] and BFD [47].”
Feature Reuse and Scaling: Understanding Transfer Learning with Protein Language Models
Li, F.-Z., Amini, A. P., Yue, Y., Yang, K. K., & Lu, A. X. (2024) · doi:10.1101/2024.02.05.578959 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- Mall, R., Kaushik, R., Martinez, Z. A., Thomson, M. W., & Castiglione, F.
- Affiliations
- Technology Innovation Institute (AE)
- California Institute of Technology (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mall, Raghvendra
- Castiglione, Filippo
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2025-01-18
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 2381-2381
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11743144
- OpenAlex
- W4406579167
- Cited by
- 20
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 8
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute of General Medical Sciences (R01GM150125)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- protein language models, protein structure determination, ESM-2, protein embeddings, homology search, benchmarking
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Crystallization, Models, Molecular, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Crystallography, X-Ray, Computational Biology, Benchmarking, 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