Semantic search using protein large language models detects class II microcins in bacterial genomes
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Class II microcins are antimicrobial peptides that have shown some potential as novel antibiotics. However, to date, only 10 class II microcins have been described, and the discovery of novel microcins has been hampered by their short length and high sequence divergence. Here, we ask if we can use numerical embeddings generated by protein large language models to detect microcins in bacterial genome assemblies and whether this method can outperform sequence-based methods such as BLAST. We find that embeddings detect known class II microcins much more reliably than does BLAST and that any two microcins tend to have a small distance in embedding space even though they typically are highly diverged at the sequence level. In data sets of Escherichia coli , Klebsiella spp., and Enterobacter spp. genomes, we further find novel putative microcins that were previously missed by sequence-based search methods. IMPORTANCE: Antibiotic resistance is becoming an increasingly serious problem in modern medicine, but the development pipeline for conventional antibiotics is not promising. Therefore, alternative approaches to combat bacterial infections are urgently needed. One such approach may be to employ naturally occurring antibacterial peptides produced by bacteria to kill competing bacteria. A promising class of such peptides are class II microcins. However, only a small number of class II microcins have been discovered to date, and the discovery of further such microcins has been hampered by their high sequence divergence and short length, which can cause sequence-based search methods to fail. Here, we demonstrate that a more robust method for microcin discovery can be built on the basis of a protein large language model, and we use this method to identify several putative novel class II microcins.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 10
- Authors
- Kulikova, A. V., Parker, J. K., Davies, B. W., & Wilke, C. O.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Austin (US)
- Corresponding author
- Wilke, Claus O.
- Venue
- mSystems
- Publisher
- American Society for Microbiology
- Published
- 2024-10-22
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- e0104424-e0104424
- ISSN
- 2379-5077 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC11494933
- OpenAlex
- W4402603541
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6
- FWCI
- 2.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- mSystems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- HHS | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (AI148419, AI182365, AI159203)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Antimicrobial Peptides and Activities
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Microbial Natural Products and Biosynthesis
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Bacterial Genetics and Biotechnology
- Keywords
- antimicrobial peptides, semantic search, protein embeddings, bacterial genome assembly, antibiotic resistance, Escherichia coli, Klebsiella, Enterobacter, BLAST comparison, sequence divergence
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