Do protein language models learn phylogeny?

IF 6.8 2区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
Sanjana Tule, Gabriel Foley, Mikael Bodén
{"title":"Do protein language models learn phylogeny?","authors":"Sanjana Tule, Gabriel Foley, Mikael Bodén","doi":"10.1093/bib/bbaf047","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deep machine learning demonstrates a capacity to uncover evolutionary relationships directly from protein sequences, in effect internalising notions inherent to classical phylogenetic tree inference. We connect these two paradigms by assessing the capacity of protein-based language models (pLMs) to discern phylogenetic relationships without being explicitly trained to do so. We evaluate ESM2, ProtTrans, and MSA-Transformer relative to classical phylogenetic methods, while also considering sequence insertions and deletions (indels) across 114 Pfam datasets. The largest ESM2 model tends to outperform other pLMs (including the multimodal ESM3) by recovering phylogenetic relationships among homologous protein sequences in both low- and high-gap settings. pLMs agree with conventional phylogenetic methods in general, but more so for protein families with fewer implied indels, highlighting indels as a key factor differentiating classical phylogenetics from pLMs. We find that pLMs preferentially capture broader as opposed to finer evolutionary relationships within a specific protein family, where ESM2 has a sweet spot for highly divergent sequences, at remote distance. Less than 10% of neurons are sufficient to broadly recapitulate classical phylogenetic distances; when used in isolation, the difference between the paradigms is further diminished. We show these neurons are polysemantic, shared among different homologous families but never fully overlapping. We highlight the potential of ESM2 as a complementary tool for phylogenetic analysis, especially when extending to remote homologs that are difficult to align and imply complex histories of insertions and deletions. Implementations of analyses are available at https://github.com/santule/pLMEvo.</p>","PeriodicalId":9209,"journal":{"name":"Briefings in bioinformatics","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Briefings in bioinformatics","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbaf047","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deep machine learning demonstrates a capacity to uncover evolutionary relationships directly from protein sequences, in effect internalising notions inherent to classical phylogenetic tree inference. We connect these two paradigms by assessing the capacity of protein-based language models (pLMs) to discern phylogenetic relationships without being explicitly trained to do so. We evaluate ESM2, ProtTrans, and MSA-Transformer relative to classical phylogenetic methods, while also considering sequence insertions and deletions (indels) across 114 Pfam datasets. The largest ESM2 model tends to outperform other pLMs (including the multimodal ESM3) by recovering phylogenetic relationships among homologous protein sequences in both low- and high-gap settings. pLMs agree with conventional phylogenetic methods in general, but more so for protein families with fewer implied indels, highlighting indels as a key factor differentiating classical phylogenetics from pLMs. We find that pLMs preferentially capture broader as opposed to finer evolutionary relationships within a specific protein family, where ESM2 has a sweet spot for highly divergent sequences, at remote distance. Less than 10% of neurons are sufficient to broadly recapitulate classical phylogenetic distances; when used in isolation, the difference between the paradigms is further diminished. We show these neurons are polysemantic, shared among different homologous families but never fully overlapping. We highlight the potential of ESM2 as a complementary tool for phylogenetic analysis, especially when extending to remote homologs that are difficult to align and imply complex histories of insertions and deletions. Implementations of analyses are available at https://github.com/santule/pLMEvo.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Briefings in bioinformatics
Briefings in bioinformatics 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
13.20
自引率
13.70%
发文量
549
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Briefings in Bioinformatics is an international journal serving as a platform for researchers and educators in the life sciences. It also appeals to mathematicians, statisticians, and computer scientists applying their expertise to biological challenges. The journal focuses on reviews tailored for users of databases and analytical tools in contemporary genetics, molecular and systems biology. It stands out by offering practical assistance and guidance to non-specialists in computerized methodologies. Covering a wide range from introductory concepts to specific protocols and analyses, the papers address bacterial, plant, fungal, animal, and human data. The journal's detailed subject areas include genetic studies of phenotypes and genotypes, mapping, DNA sequencing, expression profiling, gene expression studies, microarrays, alignment methods, protein profiles and HMMs, lipids, metabolic and signaling pathways, structure determination and function prediction, phylogenetic studies, and education and training.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信