Learning the language of life with AI
Abstract
In 2021, a year before ChatGPT took the world by storm amid the excitement about generative artificial intelligence (AI), AlphaFold 2 cracked the 50-year-old protein-folding problem, predicting three-dimensional (3D) structures for more than 200 million proteins from their amino acid sequences. This accomplishment was a precursor to an unprecedented burgeoning of large language models (LLMs) in the life sciences. That was just the beginning. In recent months, we have moved into a hyperaccelerated phase of new foundation models , pretrained on massive datasets, with the ability to perform a wide range of tasks that are helping us understand the structure, biology, evolution, and design of proteins, RNA, DNA, and ligands, as well as their biomolecular interactions. Unlike multimodal LLMs such as GPT-4, Gemini, and Claude, which process text, audio, and images, these large language of life models (LLLMs) are multiomic. That is to say, they are not only multimodal but pertain to different layers of molecular biology. For example, Evo , a foundation model trained on 2.7 million diverse phage and prokaryotic genomes (equivalent to about 300 billion DNA nucleotides), predicts the impact of variants in DNA, RNA, or proteins on structure and function, as well as how essential genes are to cell function, and can generate new DNA sequences.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Subsequent data-driven approaches including statistical machine learning and deep learning significantly improved predictive performance but remained fundamentally reactive, offering recommendations or risk scores without the ability to autonomously plan, act, or adapt over time.
“Subsequent generations of data-driven approaches, including statistical machine learning and deep learning, significantly improved predictive performance but remained fundamentally reactive, offering recommendations or risk scores without the ability to autonomously plan, act, or adapt over time [2-4].”
From Medical AI Agents for Clinical Decision Support: Viewpoint Using the Planning, Action, Reflection, and Memory (PARM) Analytical Lens (2026) · cites this paper as [3]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Dinc, R., & Ardic, N. (2026) · JMIR Medical Informatics · doi:10.2196/92584 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Topol, E. J.
- Affiliations
- Scripps Research Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Topol, Eric J.
- ORCID
- Topol, Eric J.
- Venue
- Science
- Published
- 2025-01-31
- Volume
- 387
- Issue
- 6733
- Pages
- eadv4414-eadv4414
- ISSN
- 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
- 1095-9203
- OpenAlex
- W4406970378
- Cited by
- 32
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 17
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- 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 › RNA and protein synthesis mechanisms
- Keywords
- protein structure prediction, AlphaFold, foundation models, variant effect prediction, DNA sequence generation, protein design, biomolecular interactions, ChatGPT
- MeSH terms
- Large Language Models, Artificial Intelligence, Biological Science Disciplines, DNA, Language, Proteins, RNA, Protein Folding
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