PreprintCited by 8Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsEvolution and Genetic Dynamics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Investigating the determinants of performance in machine learning for protein fitness prediction

Open access
Sandhu, Mahakaran, Mater, Adam C., Matthews, Dana S., Spence, Matthew A., Lenskiy, Artem A., Jackson, Colin·2020·bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Preprint — published as 10.1002/pro.70235

Abstract

Machine learning (ML) has revolutionized protein biology, solving long-standing problems in protein folding, scaffold generation and function design tasks. A range of architectures have shown success on supervised protein fitness prediction tasks. Nevertheless, in the absence of rational approaches for evaluating which architectures are optimal for specific datasets and engineering tasks, architecture choice remains challenging. Here, we propose a framework for investigating the determinants of success for a range of ML architectures. Using simulated (the NK model) and empirical fitness landscapes, we measure sequence-fitness prediction along six key performance metrics: interpolation within the training domain, extrapolation outside the training domain, robustness to increasing epistasis/ruggedness, ability to perform positional extrapolation, robustness to sparse training data, and sensitivity to sequence length. We show that architectural differences between algorithms consistently affect performance against these metrics across both experimental and theoretical landscapes. Moreover, landscape ruggedness emerges as a primary determinant of accuracy of sequence-fitness prediction. Our methodology and results provide a rational strategy for experimental data sampling, model selection and evaluation rooted in fitness landscape theory; one that we hope will advance sequence-fitness prediction accuracy, with implications for protein engineering and variant functional prediction.

Overview

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1101/2020.09.30.319780

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 76

  1. Rives, A. , J. Meier , T. Sercu , Siddharth Goyal , S. Goyal , Zeming Lin , Zeming Lin , Z. Lin , J. Liu , D. Guo , M. Ott , C. L. Zitnick , J. Ma & R. Fergus . Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 118, (2021). · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1016/j.cels.2022.01.003 · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.ade2574 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Jeffery, C. J. Current successes and remaining challenges in protein function prediction. Front. Bioinforma. 3, (2023). · DOI
  5. 10.1073/pnas.2109649118 · DOI
  6. 10.1038/s41592-019-0496-6 · DOI
  7. 2013, Navigating the protein fitness landscape with Gaussian processes, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A, 110, 813
  8. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty238 · DOI
  9. 10.1038/s41592-019-0583-8 · DOI
  10. 10.1093/molbev/msaa204 · DOI
  11. 2021, in NeurIPS, 34, 29287
  12. 10.1038/nbt.3300 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw255 · DOI
  14. 10.1101/239236 · DOI
  15. 10.1038/s41592-021-01100-y · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.48550/arXiv.2411.12957 · DOI
  17. Wright, S. The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. In Proc of the VI International Congress of Genetics 355–366 (Blackwell, 1932).
  18. 10.1038/225563a0 · DOI
  19. 10.1126/science.1123539 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/bs.mie.2020.07.012 · DOI
  21. 10.1073/pnas.2400439121 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1006/jtbi.1996.0189 · DOI
  23. 10.1554/04-272 · DOI
  24. 10.1088/1742-5468/2013/01/p01005 · DOI
  25. 10.1101/2024.04.25.591214 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/j.cels.2024.03.002 · DOI
  27. 10.1038/ncomms2246 · DOI
  28. 10.7554/eLife.06492 · DOI
  29. 10.1101/2023.11.25.568631 · DOI
  30. 10.1016/S0022-5193(89)80019-0 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2004.11.031 · DOI
  32. Brookes, D. H. , J. Otwinowski & S. Sinai . Contrastive losses as generalized models of global epistasis. in NeurIPS (Curran Associates, Inc., 2024).
  33. 10.1088/1742-5468/2015/06/P06014 · DOI
  34. 10.1145/3512290.3528858 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2013.05.002 · DOI
  36. 10.1073/pnas.2104878118 · DOI
  37. Barnett, L. Ruggedness and Neutrality - The NKp family of Fitness Landscapes. in Proc of the Sixth International Conference on Artificial Life (1998).
  38. 10.1038/s41467-024-50712-3 · DOI
  39. Bishop, C. M. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning. (Springer, New York, NY, 2006).
  40. 10.1162/153244303322753616 · DOI
  41. 2017, Universality classes of interaction structures for NK fitness landscapes, J. Stat. Phys, 172, 226
  42. 10.7554/eLife.16965 · DOI
  43. 10.1016/j.cub.2014.09.072 · DOI
  44. 10.1002/pro.2897 · DOI
  45. 2018, Inferring the shape of global epistasis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A, 115, 201804015
  46. 10.1038/s42256-024-00935-2 · DOI
  47. Li, M. & P. Vitányi . An Introduction to Kolmogorov Complexity and Its Applications. (Springer, New York, NY, 2008). · DOI · Paper page
  48. Anthony, M. & P. L. Bartlett . Neural Network Learning: Theoretical Foundations. (Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1999). · DOI
  49. Vapnik, V. N. Statistical Learning Theory. (Wiley-Interscience, New York, NY, 1998).
  50. 10.1109/18.256500 · DOI
  51. 10.1038/s41467-024-51895-5 · DOI
  52. 10.1103/PhysRevA.44.6399 · DOI
  53. 2003, Rigorous results for the NK model, Ann. Probab, 31, 1713
  54. 10.1090/cbms/092 · DOI
  55. 10.1155/2019/3208569 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/BF00216965 · DOI
  57. 10.1093/protein/14.9.633 · DOI
  58. 10.1016/S0022-5193(87)80029-2 · DOI
  59. 10.1007/BF00202749 · DOI
  60. 10.1162/106365600568095 · DOI
  61. Crutchfield, J. P. & P. Schuster . Evolutionary Dynamics: Exploring the Interplay of Selection, Accident, Neutrality and Function. (Oxford University Press Inc, Oxford, 2003).
  62. 10.1016/j.jtbi.2016.01.037 · DOI
  63. 10.1038/s41586-018-0170-7 · DOI
  64. 10.1038/s41467-020-15512-5 · DOI
  65. 10.1126/science.ads0018 · DOI · Paper page
  66. 10.1038/s42256-022-00532-1 · DOI
  67. 10.1101/2024.03.15.585128 · DOI
  68. 10.1038/s41467-023-38328-5 · DOI · Paper page
  69. 10.1088/1361-6633/aa94d4 · DOI
  70. 10.1023/A:1010933404324 · DOI · Paper page
  71. 10.1214/aos/1013203451 · DOI · Paper page
  72. 10.1038/323533a0 · DOI · Paper page
  73. 10.1162/neco.1989.1.4.541 · DOI · Paper page
  74. LeCun, Y. , B. Boser , J. Denker , D. Henderson , R. Howard , W. Hubbard & L. Jackel . Handwritten Digit Recognition with a Back-Propagation Network. in NeurIPS vol. 2 (Morgan-Kaufmann, 1989).
  75. 10.1162/neco.1997.9.8.1735 · DOI · Paper page
  76. Vaswani, A. , N. Shazeer , N. Parmar , J. Uszkoreit , L. Jones , A. N. Gomez , L. Kaiser & I. Polosukhin . Attention is All you Need. in NeurIPS (Curran Associates, Inc., Long Beach, CA, USA, 2017).

Metadata

Authors
Sandhu, M., Mater, A. C., Matthews, D. S., Spence, M. A., Lenskiy, A. A., & Jackson, C.
Affiliations
Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Jackson, Colin
Venue
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2020-09-30
OpenAlex
W3091616527
Cited by
8
References
4
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Australian National University
  • Westpac Scholars Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Evolution and Genetic Dynamics
Keywords
protein fitness prediction, fitness landscape, NK model, terrain ruggedness, epistasis, extrapolation, sparse training data, protein engineering, model selection

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