PUMA: Learning a Mutation-Aware Vocabulary of Protein Units
Open accessAbstract
Modeling protein sequences as a language has made language models a powerful tool in computational biology, yet the language itself remains poorly understood. A key step toward understanding it is identifying its constituent units. In natural languages, morphemes can occur in multiple forms; similarly, in proteins, mutations can give rise to variations of a unit that persist through evolution, forming families of related units. We introduce PUMA (Protein Units via Mutation-Aware Merging), an algorithm that learns protein units from sequence and explores their mutational variants using substitution matrices, forming a genealogy of unit families. Our results show that mutations remaining within a PUMA family are more often benign than the substitution matrix alone predicts, and that PUMA genealogy improves molecular function representations compared to treating units independently. A case study of a unit family demonstrates relatedness beyond homology. PUMA achieves competitive performance on downstream tasks when used as a protein language model tokenizer. Moreover, collapsing units into families results in a smaller embedding table and faster training. Together, these results support PUMA as a biologically grounded protein vocabulary that organizes protein units into plausible families of mutational variants. The source code is available at https://github.com/boun-tabi-lifelu/PUMA.
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.
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?
Recent works exemplify advanced tokenization methods in the biomedical domain, including protein, genomic, and chemical structure tokenizers.
“Recent works exemplify the transformative potential of advanced tokenization methods in the biomedical domain, including protein [38, 128, 170], genomic [30], and chemical structure [160] tokenizers.”
From Token Reduction Should Go Beyond Efficiency in Generative Models -- From Vision, Language to Multimodality (2025) · cites this paper as [128]
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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 19
- C. B. Anfinsen. Principles that govern the folding of protein chains. Science, 181(4096):223-230, 1973.
- D. Binns, E. Dimmer, R. Huntley, et al. QuickGO: a web-based tool for Gene Ontology searching. Bioinformatics, 25(22):3045-3046, 2009.
- P. Bralley. An introduction to molecular linguistics. BioScience, 46(2):146-153, 1996.
- E. Çevrim, M. G. Yigit, E. Ulusoy, et al. A benchmarking platform for assessing protein language models on function-related prediction tasks. In Protein Function Prediction: Methods and Protocols, pages 241-268. Springer, 2025.
- J.-C. Gelly, A. G. De Brevern, S. Hazout. 'Protein Peeling': an approach for splitting a 3D protein structure into compact fragments. Bioinformatics, 22(2):129-133, 2006.
- M. Grootendorst. BERTopic: Neural topic modeling with a class-based TF-IDF procedure. arXiv:2203.05794, 2022. · arXiv
- T. Hayes, R. Rao, H. Akin, et al. Simulating 500 million years of evolution with a language model. Science, 387 (6736):850-858, 2025.
- S. Henikoff, J. G. Henikoff. Amino acid substitution matrices from protein blocks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 89(22):10915-10919, 1992.
- M. J. Landrum, B. L. Kattman. ClinVar at five years: Delivering on the promise. Human Mutation, 39(11): 1623-1630, 2018.
- Z. Lin, H. Akin, R. Rao, et al. Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic-level protein structure with a language model. Science, 379(6637):1123-1130, 2023.
- J. Meier, R. Rao, R. Verkuil, et al. Language models enable zero-shot prediction of the effects of mutations on protein function. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 34, pages 29287-29303, 2021.
- Y. Muto, S. Yokoyama. Structural insight into RNA recognition motifs: versatile molecular Lego building blocks for biological systems. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: RNA, 3(2):229-246, 2012.
- P. Notin, A. Kollasch, D. Ritter, et al. ProteinGym: Large-scale benchmarks for protein fitness prediction and design. In Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, volume 36, pages 64331-64379, 2023.
- R. Sennrich, B. Haddow, A. Birch. Neural machine translation of rare words with subword units. In Proceedings of the 54th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 1715-1725, 2016.
- M. Steinegger, J. Söding. MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets. Nature Biotechnology, 35(11):1026-1028, 2017.
- J. Su, C. Han, Y. Zhou, et al. SaProt: Protein language modeling with structure-aware vocabulary. In Interna- tional Conference on Learning Representations, volume 2024, pages 6987-7009, 2024.
- B. Suyunu, E. Taylan, A. Özgür. Linguistic laws meet protein sequences: A comparative analysis of subword tokenization methods. In 2024 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), pages 4489-4496. IEEE, 2024.
- B. E. Suzek, Y. Wang, H. Huang, et al. UniRef clusters: a comprehensive and scalable alternative for improving sequence similarity searches. Bioinformatics, 31(6):926-932, 2015.
- Y. Tan, M. Li, Z. Zhou, et al. PETA: evaluating the impact of protein transfer learning with sub-word tokenization on downstream applications. Journal of Cheminformatics, 16(1):92, 2024.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Kong, Z., Li, Y., Zeng, F., Xin, L., Messica, S., Lin, X., Zhao, P., Kellis, M., Tang, H., & Zitnik, M. (2025) · arXiv · doi:10.48550/arxiv.2505.18227
- Authors
- Suyunu, B., Dolu, Ö., Olaosebikan, I. A., Bristow, H. K., & Özgür, A.
- Affiliations
- Boğaziçi University (TR)
- West Virginia University (US)
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- ISSN
- 2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
- arXiv
- 2503.08838
- OpenAlex
- W4415101103
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- arxiv.org
- Locations
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
- Funders
- European Commission
- 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 › Fractal and DNA sequence analysis
- Keywords
- protein evolution, substitution matrices, protein families, protein language models, protein domains, genealogy, high-throughput assay
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