The DOI matches its Crossref record; 93 of the 93 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 16 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Open accessAbstract
Artificial intelligence has the potential to open insight into the structure of proteins at the scale of evolution. It has only recently been possible to extend protein structure prediction to two hundred million cataloged proteins. Characterizing the structures of the exponentially growing billions of protein sequences revealed by large scale gene sequencing experiments would necessitate a break-through in the speed of folding. Here we show that direct inference of structure from primary sequence using a large language model enables an order of magnitude speed-up in high resolution structure prediction. Leveraging the insight that language models learn evolutionary patterns across millions of sequences, we train models up to 15B parameters, the largest language model of proteins to date. As the language models are scaled they learn information that enables prediction of the three-dimensional structure of a protein at the resolution of individual atoms. This results in prediction that is up to 60x faster than state-of-the-art while maintaining resolution and accuracy. Building on this, we present the ESM Metage-nomic Atlas. This is the first large-scale structural characterization of metagenomic proteins, with more than 617 million structures. The atlas reveals more than 225 million high confidence predictions, including millions whose structures are novel in comparison with experimentally determined structures, giving an unprecedented view into the vast breadth and diversity of the structures of some of the least understood proteins on earth.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The paper introduces ESM-2 protein language models up to 15B parameters and ESMFold, an end-to-end single-sequence structure predictor that reaches atomic-resolution accuracy while being up to 60x faster than state-of-the-art pipelines. It uses ESMFold to build the ESM Metagenomic Atlas, folding over 617 million MGnify90 sequences and identifying more than 225 million high-confidence structures, many novel relative to known sequences and structures.
Key findings
- Scaling ESM-2 from 8M to 15B parameters improves language modeling and structural information: validation perplexity falls from 10.45 to 6.37, unsupervised long-range contact precision (LR P@L) rises from 0.16 to 0.54, and structure-module-only LDDT rises from 0.48 to 0.72. The 15B model reaches TM-score 0.71 on CAMEO and 0.54 on CASP14, 0.064 higher than the 150M ESM-2 model on both.
- ESMFold achieves average TM-score 0.83 on CAMEO and 0.68 on CASP14, compared with AlphaFold2 at 0.88 and 0.85 and RosettaFold at 0.82 on CAMEO. On a single NVIDIA V100 GPU, ESMFold predicts a 384-residue protein in 14.2 seconds, 6x faster than a single AlphaFold2 model, with up to ~60x speedup on shorter sequences; MSA search alone can take over 10 minutes.
- The ESM Metagenomic Atlas folds over 617 million MGnify90 sequences in 2 weeks on ~2,000 GPUs, yielding ~365 million good-confidence predictions (mean pLDDT > 0.5 and pTM > 0.5) and ~225 million high-confidence predictions (mean pLDDT > 0.7 and pTM > 0.7). In a 1-million high-confidence sample, 76.8% have <90% sequence identity to UniRef90, 12.6% have no PDB structure with TM-score > 0.5, and 10.4% have both low structural similarity (TM-score ≤ 0.5) and no close sequence homolog (<30% identity).
- Confidence is well calibrated: for high-confidence predictions (pLDDT > 0.7), CAMEO accuracy is comparable to AlphaFold2 (ESMFold LDDT = 0.83, AlphaFold2 LDDT = 0.85); for very high confidence (pLDDT > 0.9), median all-atom RMSD95 is 1.42 Å and backbone RMSD95 is 0.94 Å.
Methods
- ESM-2 is a BERT-style transformer masked language model trained on UniRef50/UniRef90 sequences, scaled from 8M to 15B parameters, with models trained for up to 500K updates (15B for 270K updates) and evaluated on held-out UniRef50 clusters.
- ESMFold adds a 48-block folding head to a frozen 3B-parameter ESM-2, trained on ~25K PDB clusters covering ~325K experimentally determined chains plus ~12M AlphaFold2-predicted structures; evaluation uses temporally held-out CAMEO (194 proteins) and CASP14 (51 targets) test sets.
- Metagenomic analysis folded MGnify90 sequences of length 20–1024, covering 99% of the database, and used Foldseek, MMseqs2, blastp, and UMAP for structural and sequence similarity analyses.
Limitations
- The paper states that ESMFold was not trained on protein complexes, so complex prediction is out of distribution; it also notes that ablating MSAs for AlphaFold and RosettaFold is an artificial single-sequence setting because those models were not explicitly trained for single sequences.
- The paper states that calibration becomes critical as structure prediction scales, and that current models are far from the limit of scale in parameters, sequence data, and compute.
- Evident from the text: this is a bioRxiv preprint not certified by peer review; ESMFold is less accurate than AlphaFold2 overall on CAMEO (0.83 vs 0.88 TM-score) and CASP14 (0.68 vs 0.85), with a larger gap on hard CAMEO targets (0.45 vs 0.62).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
9 of 16 cited sources checked · 5 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“the vast majority (76.8%) of high confidence predictions being separate from UniRef90 (32) by at least 90% sequence identity”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [32] source
The citation is attached to UniRef90, identifying the reference database used for the citing paper’s comparison. The Introduction describes UniRef90 as clustering sequences at the 90% identity level; the 76.8% figure is the citing paper’s own result, not a result attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Very high confidence predictions in the metagenomic atlas are expected to often be reliable at a resolution sufficient for insight similar to experimentally determined structures, such as into the biochemistry of active sites (61);”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [61] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The High-resolution models section says predicted models can meet demanding structural requirements and sometimes support ligand-binding studies; the Medium-resolution models section says predictions can help locate active sites. The paper does not assess predictions in the metagenomic atlas or establish that its very high-confidence predictions are often reliable enough to provide experimentally comparable insight into active-site biochemistry. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“We fold over 617 million sequences from the MGnify90 database (25).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [25] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The 'UPDATES TO THE MGnify PROTEIN DATABASE' section describes MGnify protein sequences clustered at 90% identity, supporting the identification of the database. It reports over 1.1 billion sequences in the full database, but does not give a count of 617 million for the 90%-clustered set. The citing authors' folding of those sequences is their own work, not a finding attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“In a comparison with AlphaFold-Multimer (45) on a dataset of 2,978 recent multimeric complexes deposited in the PDB, ESMFold achieves the same qualitative DockQ (39) categorization for 53.2% of chain pairs, despite not being trained on protein complexes (Fig. S6).”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [45] Richard Evans , Michael O’Neill , Alexander Pritzel , Natasha Antropova , Andrew Senior , Tim Green , Augustin Žídek , Russ Bates , Sam Blackwell , Jason Yim , Olaf Ronneberger , Sebastian Bodenstein , Michal Zielinski , Alex Bridgland , Anna Potapenko , Andrew Cowie , Kathryn Tunyasuvunakool , Rishub Jain , Ellen Clancy , Pushmeet Kohli , John Jumper , and Demis Hassabis . Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer, March 2022. URL https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034v2. Pages: 2021.10.04.463034 Section: New Results. source
The citation identifies AlphaFold-Multimer as the comparator. The Results (p. 5) describe this paper's AlphaFold-Multimer predictions and benchmarks. The 2,978-complex comparison and 53.2% figure are presented as the citing authors' own results, not findings attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
- Supportedcites [39] source
Citation (39) is attached to “DockQ” and identifies the quality measure used for the categorization. The Conclusions describe DockQ as a protein–protein docking model quality score that closely recapitulates the four CAPRI quality classes; the citation is not offered as the source of the ESMFold comparison or its 53.2% result. (LLM, conf=0.93)
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This training also results in the emergence of structure in the models.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here we show that direct inference of structure from primary sequence using a large language model enables an order of magnitude speed-up in high resolution structure prediction.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We discover that an atomic resolution structure prediction can be projected from the representations of the ESM-2 language models.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We are able to complete this characterization in 2 weeks on a heterogeneous cluster of 2,000 GPUs”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in an improvement in speed of up to 60x on the inference forward pass alone”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The atlas reveals more than 225 million high confidence predictions”
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
“High confidence predictions are made for over 225M structures”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
- It may state two separate claims as one. 32
- Probably not a substantial claim. 27
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Borderline: one of the tests for a substantial claim is unclear. 1
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“This is the first large-scale structural characterization of metagenomic proteins, with more than 617 million structures.”
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
“We present the first evolutionary scale structural characterization of a metagenomic resource, folding practically all sequences in MGnify90 (25), over 617M proteins.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites [25] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The ‘UPDATES TO THE MGnify PROTEIN DATABASE’ section describes more than 1.1 billion protein sequences and their clustering, not predicted structures. Searches for the ESM Metagenomic Atlas, 617 million structures, and protein folding found no passage addressing the claimed structural characterization. (LLM, conf=0.76)
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Our second test set consists of 51 targets from the CASP14 competition (37).”
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [37] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Introduction describes CASP14 modeling targets, supporting their use as a source for a test set. It reports 68 tertiary-structure modeling targets, but does not identify the citing authors’ 51-target selection or verify its size. (LLM, conf=0.85)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Partly supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“MGnify sequence MGYP000936678158 has no significant sequence matches to any entry in UniRef90, nor any significant matches via a jackhmmer (47) reference proteome search, but has a predicted structure conserved across many nucleases (PDB 5YET B, TM-score 0.68; PDB 3HR4 A, TM-score 0.67)”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [47] source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“During method development (e.g. hyperparameter selection), we used a temporally held out validation set obtained from the Continuous Automated Model EvaluatiOn (CAMEO) server (36) by filtering from August 2021 to January 2022.”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [36] source
The citation identifies the CAMEO platform from which the citing authors obtained data. The Introduction describes CAMEO’s automated evaluations and says its benchmarking results are publicly available for methods development. The August 2021–January 2022 filtering is the citing authors’ own procedure, not a claim attributed to this 2018 source. (LLM, conf=0.92)
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The resulting ESM-2 model family significantly outperforms previously state-of-the-art ESM-1b (a ∼ 650 million parameter model) at a comparable number of parameters, and on structure prediction benchmarks it also outperforms other recent protein language models (Table S3).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At 270K training steps the 8M parameter model has a perplexity of 10.45, and the 15B model reaches a perplexity of 6.37”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in prediction that is up to 60x faster than state-ofthe-art while maintaining resolution and accuracy.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This removes costly aspects of current state-of-the-art structure prediction pipelines, eliminating the need for a multiple sequence alignment, while at the same time greatly simplifying the neural architecture used for inference.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Attention patterns develop in ESM-2 that correspond to tertiary structure (Fig. 1A), and scaling leads to large improvements in the understanding of structure (Fig. 1B).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and ∼ 225 million predictions with high confidence (mean pLDDT > 0 . 7 and pTM > 0 . 7 ) corresponding to ∼ 36% of total structures folded (Fig. 3).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first test is from CAMEO, consisting of all 194 test proteins from April 01, 2022 through June 25, 2022.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in a speed improvement for structure prediction of more than an order of magnitude while maintaining high resolution accuracy.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We were able to complete the predictions in 2 weeks on a cluster of approximately 2,000 GPUs (Appendix A.4.1).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the CAMEO test set, language model perplexity has a Pearson correlation of -0.55 with the TM-score between the predicted and experimental structures; on CASP14, the correlation is -0.67 (Fig. 2B).”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in 25,450 clusters covering a total of 325,498 chains.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ESMFold achieves competitive accuracy with RosettaFold on CAMEO, which averages a TM-score of 0.82.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The average long range P@L was 0.4287 with a standard deviation of 0.0028.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MGnify sequence MGYP004000959047 has no significant UniRef90 or jackhmmer reference proteome matches but its predicted structure has high similarity to experimental structures of lipid binding domains (PDB 6BYM A, TMscore 0.80; PDB 5YQP B, TM-score 0.78)”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using the search protocols released with AlphaFold2, including MSAs and templates, AlphaFold2 achieves 0.88 and 0.85 on CAMEO and CASP14 respectively.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For Hsu et al. (62) we generated a set of 13,477,259 structure predictions with AlphaFold2 using MSAs generated via the process in Rao et al. (40).”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 15 billion parameter model reaches a TM-score of 0.71 on the CAMEO test set and 0.54 on the CASP14 test set, 0.064 points higher than the 150 million parameter ESM-2 model on both (Fig. 1E).”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This characterization reveals the structures of hundreds of millions proteins that have been previously unknown, millions of which are novel in comparison to experimentally determined structures.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ESMFold achieves an average TM-score of 0.83 on CAMEO and 0.68 on CASP14.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No filtering is performed on these test sets, as ESMFold is able to make predictions on all sequences, including the length-2166 target T1044.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the way the dataset is constructed, only 1.5% of the dataset is removed with this filter.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Language models greatly accelerate state-of-the-art high resolution structure prediction.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes? Based: unclearBorderline substantial claim. It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On a single NVIDIA V100 GPU, ESMFold makes a prediction on a protein with 384 residues in 14.2 seconds, 6x faster than a single AlphaFold2 model.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Across all models (Table S3) there is a correlation of -0.99 between validation perplexity and CASP14 TM-score, and -1.00 between validation perplexity and CAMEO TM-score”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the CAMEO test set, ESMFold predictions have a median all-atom RMSD 95 (root-mean-squared deviation at 95% residue coverage) of 1.91 ˚ A and backbone RMSD 95 of 1.33 ˚ A.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For RoseTTAfold, the speed of the SE(3) Transformer dominates, especially at low sequence lengths.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These steps result in a total of 2978 clusters.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At low sequence lengths, ESMFold is dominated by language model performance, while the O ( N 3 ) computation of pairwise representations takes over at high sequence lengths.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Differentiation is greater in the ªmediumº and ªhardº classes, which have lower MSA depth and are better predicted by AlphaFold2.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We see an over 60x speed advantage for shorter protein sequences, and a reasonable speed advantage for longer protein sequences.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“which we were able to do in 2 weeks time.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unsupervised contact prediction results show that both RoPE and newer data significantly improve the results.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We estimate that on a homogeneous network GPU cluster of V100s, the entire 620 million sequences would take approximately 28,000 GPU days to fold”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Language model perplexity and ESMFold pLDDT are both well correlated with actual structure prediction accuracy on CASP14 and CAMEO.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After 270K updates the 8M parameter model has a perplexity of 10.45, and the 15B model reaches a perplexity of 6.37.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“After filtering, there are 104 sequences with MSA depth ≤ 100 , 70 sequences with MSA depth ≤ 10 , and 22 sequences with MSA depth = 1.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“analyzed the high-confidence subset with mean pLDDT greater than 0.9, corresponding to ∼ 59K structures.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This results in a total of 3505 unique chain pairs.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We do observe a slight regression when sampling from UniRef90 clusters”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“These capabilities develop as a function of scale, with greater capabilities emerging as computation, data, and number of parameters increase.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 19±22
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Within a protein family, structure and function can be inferred from the patterns in sequences (4, 5).”
What the sources say
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that improvement on sequences with high evolutionary depth saturates at lower model scales, and improvement on sequences with low evolutionary depth continues as models increase in size.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“language models of text, despite the simplicity of their training objectives, such as filling in missing words or predicting the next word, are shown to develop emergent capabilities that are connected to the underlying meaning of the text.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites 19±22
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As the language models are scaled they learn information that enables prediction of the three-dimensional structure of a protein at the resolution of individual atoms.”
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
“We discover that atomic resolution structure prediction emerges and continues to improve in language models over the four orders of magnitude in parameter scale.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model · p. 2 · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No filtering is performed on these test sets, as ESMFold is able to make predictions on all sequences, including the length-2166 target T1044.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All train sequences which match a validation sequence with 50% sequence identity under this search are removed from the train set.”
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We report results by testing 3D structure prediction models on two test sets, both chosen to be temporally held out from our supervised training set.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All compared sequences are temporally held out from the training set.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“however we believe this difference is small and the UniRef90 cluster sampling is likely to help for the larger models.”
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of SE(3) max-iterations are artificially limited to 20 (default 200) and no MSAs are used as input for these measurements.”
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, this only measures the network forward time, and does not include the time taken to compute sidechains with PyRosetta or search for MSAs.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Since BERT style models have been shown to be amenable to very large batch sizes (67), we increased our effective batch size to 2M tokens.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [67] Yang You , Jing Li , Sashank Reddi , Jonathan Hseu , Sanjiv Kumar , Srinadh Bhojanapalli , Xiaodan Song , James Demmel , Kurt Keutzer , and Cho-Jui Hsieh. Large Batch Optimization for Deep Learning: Training BERT in 76 Minutes. page 38, 2020.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“even though ESMFold is not trained on protein complexes.”
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
AlphaFold2 predictions provide a valid reference for assessing the accuracy of ESMFold predictions on metagenomic proteins.
“We also assess calibration against AlphaFold predictions on metagenomic proteins.”
“On a random subset of ∼ 4K metagenomic sequences, there is a high correlation (Pearson r = 0.79) between ESMFold pLDDT and the LDDT to AlphaFold2 predictions (Fig. 3A).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The MGnify90 database is representative of metagenomic protein diversity.
“We fold over 617 million sequences from the MGnify90 database (25).”
The paper relies on this without support.
The PDB database provides a comprehensive reference for experimentally determined protein structures.
“no structure is found with TM-score over 0.5 in the PDB database”
“no experimentally determined structure with a similar fold could be identified”
The paper relies on this without support.
Absolute positional encoding methods don't extrapolate well beyond the context window they are trained on.
“However, absolute positional encoding methods don't extrapolate well beyond the context window they are trained on.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Orphan proteins are very challenging for current structure prediction models due to a lack of evolutionary information.
“Due to a lack of evolutionary information, these sequences can be very challenging for current structure prediction models.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Evo also reaches competitive performance with leading protein-specific language models (41, 46–48) (Fig. 2B).”
From Sequence modeling and design from molecular to genome scale with Evo (2024) · cites this paper as [47]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Such modeling paradigms have been used successfully in the biomolecular realm, for example, to predict three-dimensional (3D) molecular structures from sequences32–34 and interactions between different molecular components.35–38”
From How to build the virtual cell with artificial intelligence: Priorities and opportunities (2024) · cites this paper as [34]
In the citing paper
“are the best and most accurate answer to the structure prediction problem to date”
From The power and pitfalls of AlphaFold2 for structure prediction beyond rigid globular proteins (2024) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“The unprecedented accuracy of AlphaFold2,127 RosettaFold,128 and others129,130 offers, at least in principle, the opportunity to virtually screen any protein of interest with the structure-based approach, irrespective of its a priori ligandability (after AlphaFold2, the structural coverage of the human proteome increased from 48% to 76% of the total residues).131”
From Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation via Multiomics Profiling and Artificial Intelligence (2023) · cites this paper as [129]
In the citing paper
“This difficulty is amplified by the fact that the repository of publicly available structures, consisting of the combined databases of AFDB and the ESMatlas38, is approaching a billion entries.”
From Clustering predicted structures at the scale of the known protein universe (2023) · cites this paper as [38]
In the citing paper
“the ESM Atlas contains over 617 million metagenomic structures predicted by ESMFold4.”
From Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek (2024) · cites this paper as [4]
In the citing paper
“Our current proof-of-concept model is considerably smaller—by 200 times—than the largest published protein language model (49).”
From DNA language models are powerful predictors of genome-wide variant effects (2023) · cites this paper as [49]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Conflicting PDB identifier for the nuclease example
MinorThe main text identifies the comparison structure as PDB 3HR4 A, but the Figure 4 caption identifies it as PDB 3H4R. These are different identifiers for the same described example.
“PDB 3HR4 A, TM-score 0.67”
“The predicted structure of MGYP000936678158 aligns to an experimental structure from a bacterial nuclease (light brown, PDB: 3H4R)”
Citations
Cites
Basic local alignment search tool
Altschul, S. F., Gish, W., Miller, W., Myers, E. W., & Lipman, D. J. (1990) · Journal of Molecular Biology · doi:10.1006/jmbi.1990.9999 · Cited by 98,669
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2018) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1810.04805 · Cited by 73,173
Scikit-learn: Machine Learning in Python
Pedregosa, F., Varoquaux, G., Gramfort, A., Michel, V., Thirion, B., Grisel, O., Blondel, M., Müller, A., Nothman, J., Louppe, G., et al. (2012) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1201.0490 · Cited by 71,016
BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understanding
Devlin, J., Chang, M.-W., Lee, K., & Toutanova, K. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers) · doi:10.18653/v1/n19-1423 · Cited by 54,325
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
Language Models are Few-Shot Learners
Brown, T. B., Mann, B., Ryder, N., Subbiah, M., Kaplan, J., Dhariwal, P., Neelakantan, A., Shyam, P., Sastry, G., Askell, A., et al. (2020) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2005.14165 · Cited by 23,372
A Programmable Dual-RNA–Guided DNA Endonuclease in Adaptive Bacterial Immunity
Jinek, M., Chylinski, K., Fonfara, I., Hauer, M., Doudna, J. A., & Charpentier, E. (2012) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1225829 · Cited by 17,116
ColabFold - Making protein folding accessible to all
Mirdita, M., Schütze, K., Moriwaki, Y., Heo, L., Ovchinnikov, S., & Steinegger, M. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.08.15.456425 · Cited by 9,391
SCANPY: large-scale single-cell gene expression data analysis
Wolf, F. A., Angerer, P., & Theis, F. J. (2018) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-017-1382-0 · Cited by 8,881
Varadi, M., Anyango, S., Deshpande, M., Nair, S., Natassia, C., Yordanova, G., Yuan, D., Stroe, O., Wood, G., Laydon, A., et al. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · Cited by 7,850
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ashish Vaswani , Noam Shazeer , Niki Parmar , Jakob Uszkoreit , Llion Jones , Aidan N Gomez , Łukasz Kaiser , and Illia Polosukhin . Attention Is All You Need. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pages 5998–6008, 2017. URL https://papers.nips.cc/paper/7181-attention-is-all-you-need.pdf.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–400 of 5,663
AlphaFold 3: an unprecedent opportunity for fundamental research and drug development
Fang, Z., Ran, H., Zhang, Y., Chen, C., Ping, L., Zhang, X., & Wu, M. (2025) · Precision Clinical Medicine · doi:10.1093/pcmedi/pbaf015 · Cited by 67
Modern microbiology: Embracing complexity through integration across scales
Eren, A. M., & Banfield, J. F. (2024) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.08.028 · Cited by 57
Antibody design using deep learning: from sequence and structure design to affinity maturation
Joubbi, S., Micheli, A., Milazzo, P., Maccari, G., Ciano, G., Cardamone, D., & Medini, D. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae307 · Cited by 56
Molecular Modelling in Bioactive Peptide Discovery and Characterisation
Agoni, C., Fernández-Díaz, R., Timmons, P. B., Adelfio, A., Gómez, H., & Shields, D. C. (2025) · Biomolecules · doi:10.3390/biom15040524 · Cited by 63
Biomolecular NMR spectroscopy in the era of artificial intelligence
Shukla, V. K., Heller, G. T., & Hansen, D. F. (2023) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2023.09.011 · Cited by 52
Large‐Language‐Model‐Based AI Agent for Organic Semiconductor Device Research
Zhang, Q., Hu, Y., Yan, J., Zhang, H., Xie, X., Zhu, J., Li, H., Niu, X., Li, L., Sun, Y., et al. (2024) · Advanced Materials · doi:10.1002/adma.202405163 · Cited by 53
scPRINT: pre-training on 50 million cells allows robust gene network predictions
Kalfon, J., Samaran, J., Gabriel Peyré, A., & Cantini, L. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-58699-1 · Cited by 76
Chen, J., Wang, J., Hu, Y., Li, X., Qian, Y., & Song, C.-L. (2025) · Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology · doi:10.3389/fbioe.2025.1506508 · Cited by 64
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
Luo, Z., Wang, R., Sun, Y., Liu, J., Chen, Z., & Zhang, Y. (2023) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbad534 · Cited by 51
Wu, B., Zhong, B., Zheng, L., Huang, R., Jiang, S., Li, M., Hong, L., & Tan, P. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-61599-z · Cited by 50
Benchmarking DNA foundation models for genomic and genetic tasks
Feng, H., Wu, L., Zhao, B., Huff, C. D., Zhang, J. J., Wu, J., Lin, L., Wei, P., & Wu, C. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-65823-8 · Cited by 83
Generative design of novel bacteriophages with genome language modelsPreprint
King, S. H., Driscoll, C. L., Li, D. B., Guo, D., Merchant, A. T., Brixi, G., Wilkinson, M. E., & Hie, B. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.09.12.675911 · Cited by 50
Self-citationPrakinee, K., Phaisan, S., Kongjaroon, S., & Chaiyen, P. (2024) · JACS Au · doi:10.1021/jacsau.4c00653 · Cited by 54
Artificial intelligence in drug development: reshaping the therapeutic landscape
Niazi, S. K., & Mariam, Z. (2025) · Therapeutic Advances in Drug Safety · doi:10.1177/20420986251321704 · Cited by 66
Terwilliger, T. C., Liebschner, D., Croll, T. I., Williams, C. J., McCoy, A. J., Poon, B. K., Afonine, P. V., Oeffner, R. D., Richardson, J. S., Read, R. J., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.11.21.517405 · Cited by 411
Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation via Multiomics Profiling and Artificial Intelligence
Duran-Frigola, M., Cigler, M., & Winter, G. E. (2023) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.2c11098 · Cited by 50
Zeng, W., Dou, Y., Pan, L., Xu, L., & Peng, S. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-52293-7 · Cited by 49
Generative Artificial Intelligence in Anatomic Pathology
Brodsky, V., Ullah, E., Bychkov, A., Song, A. H., Walk, E. E., Louis, P., Rasool, G., Singh, R. S., Mahmood, F., Bui, M. M., et al. (2025) · Archives of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine · doi:10.5858/arpa.2024-0215-ra · Cited by 48
Computational enzyme design by catalytic motif scaffolding
Braun, M., Tripp, A., Chakatok, M., Kaltenbrunner, S., Fischer, C., Stoll, D., Bijelic, A., Elaily, W., Totaro, M. G., Moser, M., et al. (2026) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-09747-9 · Cited by 73
Cosentino, S., Sriswasdi, S., & Iwasaki, W. (2024) · Genome Biology · doi:10.1186/s13059-024-03298-4 · Cited by 50
Tertiary structure assessment at CASP15
Simpkin, A. J., Mesdaghi, S., Rodríguez, F. S., Elliott, L. G., Murphy, D., Kryshtafovych, A., Keegan, R. M., & Rigden, D. J. (2023) · Proteins Structure Function and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26593 · Cited by 46
Enzyme function and evolution through the lens of bioinformatics
Ribeiro, A. J. M., Riziotis, I. G., Borkakoti, N., & Thornton, J. M. (2023) · Biochemical Journal · doi:10.1042/bcj20220405 · Cited by 51
Are protein language models the new universal key?
Weißenow, K., & Rost, B. (2025) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2025.102997 · Cited by 54
A trimodal protein language model enables advanced protein searches
Su, J., He, Y., You, S., Jiang, S. J., Zhou, X., Zhang, X., Wang, Y., Su, X., Tolstoy, I., Chang, X., et al. (2025) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-025-02836-0 · Cited by 67
Joint Generation of Protein Sequence and Structure with RoseTTAFold Sequence Space DiffusionPreprint
Lisanza, S. L., Gershon, J. M., Tipps, S. W. K., Arnoldt, L., Hendel, S. J., Sims, J. N., Li, X., & Baker, D. A. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.05.08.539766 · Cited by 48
Academic Surgery in the Era of Large Language Models
Rengers, T. A., Thiels, C. A., & Salehinejad, H. (2024) · JAMA Surgery · doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2023.6496 · Cited by 52
Resolving data bias improves generalization in binding affinity prediction
Graber, D., Stockinger, P., Meyer, F., Mishra, S., Horn, C., & Buller, R. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01124-5 · Cited by 69
pLM4Alg: Protein Language Model-Based Predictors for Allergenic Proteins and Peptides
Du, Z., Xu, Y., Liu, C., & Li, Y. (2023) · Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.3c07143 · Cited by 48
Morphological profiling for drug discovery in the era of deep learning
Tang, Q., Ratnayake, R., Seabra, G. D. M., Jiang, Z., Fang, R., Cui, L., Ding, Y., Kahveci, T., Bian, J., Li, C., et al. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae284 · Cited by 58
Deep Generative Models for Therapeutic Peptide Discovery: A Comprehensive Review
Lai, L., Liu, Y., Song, B., Li, K., & Zeng, X. (2025) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3714455 · Cited by 47
A combinatorially complete epistatic fitness landscape in an enzyme active site
Johnston, K. E., Almhjell, P. J., Watkins-Dulaney, E. J., Liu, G., Porter, N. J., Yang, J., & Arnold, F. H. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2400439121 · Cited by 44
Target-Specific De Novo Peptide Binder Design with DiffPepBuilder
Wang, F., Wang, Y. X., Feng, L., Zhang, C., & Lai, L. (2024) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.4c00975 · Cited by 53
Origin and functional diversification of PAS domain, a ubiquitous intracellular sensor
Xing, J., Gumerov, V. M., & Zhulin, I. B. (2023) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adi4517 · Cited by 44
LegNet: a best-in-class deep learning model for short DNA regulatory regions
Penzar, D., Nogina, D., Noskova, E., Zinkevich, A. O., Meshcheryakov, G., Lando, A. S., Rafi, A. M., de Boer, C. G., & Kulakovskiy, I. V. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad457 · Cited by 52
Conditional language models enable the efficient design of proficient enzymesPreprint
Munsamy, G., Illanes-Vicioso, R., Fruncillo, S., Nakou, I. T., Lindner, S., Ayres, G., Sheehan, L. S., Moss, S. J., Eckhard, U., Lorenz, P., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.05.03.592223 · Cited by 59
AI-Driven Enzyme Engineering: Emerging Models and Next-Generation Biotechnological Applications
Khan, M. F., & Khan, M. T. (2025) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules31010045 · Cited by 49
pLDDT Values in AlphaFold2 Protein Models Are Unrelated to Globular Protein Local Flexibility
Carugo, O. (2023) · Crystals · doi:10.3390/cryst13111560 · Cited by 46
Rational design of functional amyloid fibrillar assemblies
Wang, X., Zhang, S., Zhang, J., Wang, Y., Jiang, X., Tao, Y., Li, D., Zhong, C., & Liu, C. (2023) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d2cs00756h · Cited by 48
The current role and evolution of X-ray crystallography in drug discovery and development
Bijak, V., Szczygiel, M., Lenkiewicz, J., Gucwa, M., Cooper, D. R., Murzyn, K., & Minor, W. (2023) · Expert Opinion on Drug Discovery · doi:10.1080/17460441.2023.2246881 · Cited by 51
Identification of gut microbial bile acid metabolic enzymes via an AI-assisted pipeline
Ding, Y., Luo, X., Guo, J., Xing, B., Lin, H., Ma, H., Wang, Y., Li, M., Ye, C., Yan, S. R., et al. (2025) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2025.07.017 · Cited by 54
Evolutionary selection of proteins with two folds
(2023) · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-41237-2 · Cited by 41
CoCoNat: a novel method based on deep learning for coiled-coil prediction
Madeo, G., Savojardo, C., Manfredi, M., Martelli, P. L., & Casadio, R. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad495 · Cited by 38
AlphaBridge: Tools for the analysis of predicted biomolecular complexes
Salmoral, D. Á., Borza, R., Maiella, C., Kwee, B. P. Y., Xie, R., Joosten, R. P., Hekkelman, M. L., & Anastassis Perrakis, A. (2026) · Structure · doi:10.1016/j.str.2026.08.011 · Cited by 50
ProSST: Protein Language Modeling with Quantized Structure and Disentangled Attention
Li, M., Tan, Y., Ma, X., Zhong, B., Yu, H., Zhou, Z., Ouyang, W., Zhong, B., Hong, L., & Tan, Y. (2024) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/079017-1126 · Cited by 52
Nallapareddy, V., Bordin, N., Sillitoe, I., Heinzinger, M., Littmann, M., Waman, V. P., Sen, N., Rost, B., & Orengo, C. (2023) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btad029 · Cited by 47
Recent Developments in Ultralarge and Structure-Based Virtual Screening Approaches
Gorgulla, C. (2023) · Annual Review of Biomedical Data Science · doi:10.1146/annurev-biodatasci-020222-025013 · Cited by 58
Data‐Driven Protein Engineering for Improving Catalytic Activity and Selectivity
Ao, Y., Dörr, M., Menke, M. J., Born, S., Heuson, E., & Bornscheuer, U. T. (2023) · ChemBioChem · doi:10.1002/cbic.202300754 · Cited by 44
Zhu, Y., Liu, Z., Liu, Y., Ji, Z., & Yu, D. (2024) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbae040 · Cited by 49
Rapid and automated design of two-component protein nanomaterials using ProteinMPNN
de Haas, R. J., Brunette, N., Goodson, A., Dauparas, J., Yi, S. Y., Yang, E. C., Dowling, Q., Nguyen, H., Kang, A., Bera, A. K., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2314646121 · Cited by 42
An end-to-end framework for the prediction of protein structure and fitness from single sequence
Chen, Y., Xu, Y., Liu, D., Xing, Y., & Gong, H. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51776-x · Cited by 45
The Nobel Prize in Chemistry: past, present, and future of AI in biology
Abriata, L. A. (2024) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07113-5 · Cited by 49
DefensePredictor: A machine learning model to discover prokaryotic immune systems
DeWeirdt, P. C., Mahoney, E. M., & Laub, M. T. (2026) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adv7924 · Cited by 53
Artificial intelligence and machine learning in cell-free-DNA-based diagnosticsPreprint
Tsui, W., Ding, S. C., Jiang, P., & Lo, Y. M. D. (2025) · Genome Research · doi:10.1101/gr.278413.123 · Cited by 51
Randall, J. R., Vieira, L. C., Wilke, C. O., & Davies, B. W. (2024) · Nature Biomedical Engineering · doi:10.1038/s41551-024-01243-1 · Cited by 53
Xiong, D., Qiu, Y., Zhao, J., Zhou, Y., Lee, D., Gupta, S., Torres, M., Lü, W., Liang, S., Kang, J. J., et al. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-024-02428-4 · Cited by 49
ProLLaMA: A Protein Large Language Model for Multitask Protein Language Processing
Lv, L., Lin, Z., Li, H., Liu, Y., Cui, J., Chen, C. Y., Yuan, L., & Tian, Y. (2025) · IEEE Transactions on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1109/tai.2025.3564914 · Cited by 93
Self-citationScaling Unlocks Broader Generation and Deeper Functional Understanding of Proteins
Bhatnagar, A., Jain, S., Beazer, J., Curran, S. C., Hoffnagle, A. M., Ching, K., Martyn, M., Nayfach, S., Ruffolo, J. A., & Madani, A. (2025) · neural information processing systems · doi:10.52202/085713-1536 · Cited by 55
The OMG dataset: An Open MetaGenomic corpus for mixed-modality genomic language modelingPreprint
Cornman, A., West-Roberts, J. A., Camargo, A. P., Roux, S., Beracochea, M., Mirdita, M., Ovchinnikov, S., & Hwang, Y. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.08.14.607850 · Cited by 52
SaLT&PepPr is an interface-predicting language model for designing peptide-guided protein degraders
Brixi, G., Ye, T., Hong, L., Wang, T., Monticello, C., Lopez‐Barbosa, N., Vincoff, S., Yudistyra, V., Zhao, L., Haarer, E. L., et al. (2023) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-023-05464-z · Cited by 41
A protein language model for exploring viral fitness landscapes
Ito, J., Strange, A. P., Liu, W., Joas, G., Lytras, S., Matsuno, K., Nao, N., Sawa, H., Mizuma, K., Kojima, I., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-59422-w · Cited by 51
AggreProt: a web server for predicting and engineering aggregation prone regions in proteins
Planas-Iglesias, J., Borko, S., Swiatkowski, J., Elias, M., Havlásek, M., Salamon, O., Grakova, E., Kunka, A., Martinovič, T., Damborský, J., et al. (2024) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkae420 · Cited by 46
Optimizing enzyme thermostability by combining multiple mutations using protein language model
Bian, J., Tan, P., Nie, T., Hong, L. Y., & Yang, G. (2024) · mLife · doi:10.1002/mlf2.12151 · Cited by 43
Prediction of protein assemblies by structure sampling followed by interface‐focused scoring
Olechnovič, K., Valančauskas, L., Dapkūnas, J., & Venclovas, Č. (2023) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26569 · Cited by 40
CellSAM: a foundation model for cell segmentation
Marks, M., Israel, U., Dilip, R., Li, Q., Yu, C., Laubscher, E., Iqbal, A., Pradhan, E., Ates, A., Abt, M., et al. (2025) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-025-02879-w · Cited by 152
Protein structure-informed bacteriophage genome annotation with Phold
Bouras, G., Grigson, S. R., Mirdita, M., Heinzinger, M., Papudeshi, B., Mallawaarachchi, V., Green, R., Kim, R. S., Mihalia, V., Psaltis, A. J., et al. (2026) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkaf1448 · Cited by 71
Multi-modal deep learning enables efficient and accurate annotation of enzymatic active sites
Wang, X., Yin, X., Jiang, D., Zhao, H., Wu, Z., Zhang, O., Wang, J., Li, Y., Deng, Y., Liu, H., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51511-6 · Cited by 47
SEMA 2.0: web-platform for B-cell conformational epitopes prediction using artificial intelligence
Ivanisenko, N. V., Shashkova, T., Shevtsov, A., Sindeeva, M., Umerenkov, D., & Kardymon, O. L. (2024) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkae386 · Cited by 47
Protein–protein interaction prediction methods: from docking-based to AI-based approaches
Tsuchiya, Y., Yamamori, Y., & Tomii, K. (2022) · Biophysical Reviews · doi:10.1007/s12551-022-01032-7 · Cited by 46
End-to-end protein–ligand complex structure generation with diffusion-based generative models
Nakata, S., Mori, Y., & Tanaka, S. (2023) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/s12859-023-05354-5 · Cited by 45
Fast, sensitive detection of protein homologs using deep dense retrieval
Hong, L., Hu, Z., Sun, S., Tang, X., Wang, J., Tan, Q., Zheng, L., Wang, S., Xu, S. Y., King, I., et al. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-024-02353-6 · Cited by 46
Generative AI as a tool to accelerate the field of ecology
Rafiq, K., Beery, S., Palmer, M. S., Harchaoui, Z., & Abrahms, B. L. (2025) · Nature Ecology & Evolution · doi:10.1038/s41559-024-02623-1 · Cited by 49
Cold seeps are potential hotspots of deep-sea nitrogen loss driven by microorganisms across 21 phyla
Jiang, Q., Cao, L., Han, Y., Li, S., Zhao, R., Zhang, X., Ruff, S. E., Zhao, Z., Peng, J., Liao, J., et al. (2025) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-56774-1 · Cited by 45
AlphaBridge: tools for the analysis of predicted biomolecular complexesPreprint
Salmoral, D. Á., Borza, R., Maiella, C., et al. (2024) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2024.10.23.619601 · Cited by 43
Protein structure prediction via deep learning: an in-depth review
Meng, Y., Zhang, Z., Zhou, C., Tang, X., Hu, X., Tian, G., Yang, J., & Yao, Y. (2025) · Frontiers in Pharmacology · doi:10.3389/fphar.2025.1498662 · Cited by 52
AI-empowered human microbiome research
Tian, Z., & Zhao, F. (2025) · Gut · doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2025-335946 · Cited by 59
Zero-shot antibody design in a 24-well platePreprint
Chai Discovery Team, Boitreaud, J., Dent, J., Geisz, D., McPartlon, M., Meier, J., Qiao, Z., Rogozhnikov, A., Rollins, N., Wollenhaupt, P., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.07.05.663018 · Cited by 56
Olechnovič, K., & Venclovas, Č. (2023) · Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1002/prot.26554 · Cited by 38
Highly accurate carbohydrate-binding site prediction with DeepGlycanSite
He, X., Zhao, L.-F., Tian, Y.-P., Li, R., Chu, Q., Gu, Z.-Y., Zheng, M.-Y., Wang, Y., Li, S.-N., Jiang, H.-L., et al. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-024-49516-2 · Cited by 43
AI-driven de novo enzyme design: Strategies, applications, and future prospects
Cui, X.-C., Zheng, Y., Liu, Y., Yuchi, Z., & Yuan, Y. (2025) · Biotechnology Advances · doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2025.108603 · Cited by 44
Technological advancements in antibody-based therapeutics for treatment of diseases
Lu, R., Chiang, H.-L., Yuan, J. P., Wang, H.-H., Chen, C.-Y., Panda, S. S., Liang, K.-H., Peng, H., Ko, S.-H., Hsu, H.-J., et al. (2025) · Journal of Biomedical Science · doi:10.1186/s12929-025-01190-2 · Cited by 59
Ferriol-González, C., Concha-Eloko, R., Bernabéu-Gimeno, M., Fernández-Cuenca, F., Cañada-García, J. E., García-Cobos, S., Sanjuán, R., & Domingo‐Calap, P. (2024) · Microbiology Spectrum · doi:10.1128/spectrum.00254-24 · Cited by 43
Deploying synthetic coevolution and machine learning to engineer protein-protein interactions
Yang, A., Jude, K. M., Lai, B., Minot, M., Kocyła, A., Glassman, C. R., Nishimiya, D., Kim, Y. S., Reddy, S. T., Khan, A. A., et al. (2023) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.adh1720 · Cited by 45
dbAPIS: a database of anti-prokaryotic immune system genes
Yan, Y., Zheng, J., Zhang, X., & Yin, Y. (2023) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkad932 · Cited by 42
De novo design of transmembrane fluorescence-activating proteins
Zhu, J., Liang, M., Sun, K., Yu, W., Guo, R., Zhang, L., Shi, J., Ma, D., Hu, Q., Huang, G., et al. (2025) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-025-08598-8 · Cited by 51
Karlsen, S. T., Rau, M. H., Sánchez, B. J., Jensen, K. L., & Zeidan, A. A. (2023) · FEMS Microbiology Reviews · doi:10.1093/femsre/fuad030 · Cited by 44
CellFlow enables generative single-cell phenotype modeling with flow matchingPreprint
Klein, D., Fleck, J. S., Bobrovskiy, D. M., Zimmermann, L., Becker, S., Palma, A., Dony, L., Tejada-Lapuerta, A., Huguet, G., Lin, H., et al. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.04.11.648220 · Cited by 65
Enabling large language models for real-world materials discovery
Miret, S., & Krishnan, N. M. A. (2025) · Nature Machine Intelligence · doi:10.1038/s42256-025-01058-y · Cited by 138
Maniotis, P., & Kuchta, D. M. (2023) · Journal of Optical Communications and Networking · doi:10.1364/jocn.501427 · Cited by 45
Modeling protein–ligand interactions for drug discovery in the era of deep learning
Wang, Y. X., Li, Y., Chen, J., & Lai, L. (2025) · Chemical Society Reviews · doi:10.1039/d5cs00415b · Cited by 53
Nitrogen sensing and regulatory networks: it's about time and space
Shanks, C. M., Rothkegel, K., Brooks, M. D., Cheng, C., Álvarez, J. M., Ruffel, S., Krouk, G., Gutiérrez, R. A., & Coruzzi, G. M. (2024) · The Plant Cell · doi:10.1093/plcell/koae038 · Cited by 43
Tracing the Influence of Large Language Models across the Most Impactful Scientific Works
Petroșanu, D.-M., Pîrjan, A., & Tăbușcă, A. (2023) · Electronics · doi:10.3390/electronics12244957 · Cited by 47
Prot2Text: Multimodal Protein’s Function Generation with GNNs and Transformers
Abdine, H., Chatzianastasis, M., Bouyioukos, C., & Vazirgiannis, M. (2024) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v38i10.28948 · Cited by 58
Recent Progress of Protein Tertiary Structure Prediction
Wuyun, Q., Chen, Y., Shen, Y., Cao, Y., Hu, G., Cui, W., Gao, J., & Zheng, W. H. (2024) · Molecules · doi:10.3390/molecules29040832 · Cited by 48
The future of machine learning for small-molecule drug discovery will be driven by data
Durant, G., Boyles, F., Birchall, K., & Deane, C. M. (2024) · Nature Computational Science · doi:10.1038/s43588-024-00699-0 · Cited by 46
Single-sequence protein structure prediction by integrating protein language models
Jing, X., Wu, F., Luo, X., & Xu, J. (2024) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2308788121 · Cited by 51
Deciphering 3'UTR Mediated Gene Regulation Using Interpretable Deep Representation Learning
Yang, Y., Li, G. L., Pang, K., Cao, W., Zhang, Z., & Li, X. (2024) · Advanced Science · doi:10.1002/advs.202407013 · Cited by 42
Peng, C., Ni, W., Liu, Q., Hu, G., & Zheng, W. H. (2025) · Briefings in Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bib/bbaf616 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., dos Santos Costa, A., Fazel-Zarandi, M., Sercu, T., Candido, S., & Rives, A.
- Affiliations
- New York University (US)
- Stanford University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rives, Alexander
- ORCID
- Venue
- Science
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2022-07-21
- Volume
- 379
- Issue
- 6637
- Pages
- 1123-1130
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4327550249
- Cited by
- 5,990
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2468 · 2025: 1837 · 2024: 1170 · 2023: 485 · 2022: 23
- FWCI
- 460.33
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › Structural Biology › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- protein structure prediction, large language models, protein evolution, atomic-scale structure, protein folding, structural diversity
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Amino Acid Sequence, Protein Conformation, Proteins, Evolution, Molecular, Sequence Analysis, 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
