{"title":"Beyond Plastic Labels: Polymer-Aware Substrate Encoding Improves Plastizyme Prediction and Reliability Models","authors":"Joseph Wasswa, Bharath Ramsundar","doi":"10.1021/acsestengg.6c00559","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Machine learning is increasingly being used to identify\r\nplastic-degrading\r\nenzymes (plastizymes), yet systematic evaluations of how different\r\nprotein and polymer representations influence predictive performance,\r\ngeneralization, and computational cost remain lacking. Here, we systematically\r\nevaluated protein–polymer representation strategies using a\r\ncurated data set of 720 enzyme–polymer interactions spanning\r\nseven polymer families. Handcrafted and learned protein and polymer\r\nrepresentations, including transformer-based embeddings, graph representations,\r\nmolecular descriptors, molecular fingerprints, and polymer language\r\nmodel embeddings, were evaluated individually and in multimodal combinations.\r\nModels were assessed using random, MMseqs2 sequence-clustered, and\r\nleave-one-polymer-family-out splits to quantify both in-distribution\r\nperformance and out-of-distribution generalization. Under random splits,\r\nseveral multimodal models achieved excellent predictive performance\r\n(AUROC > 0.95), with transformer-based protein embeddings consistently\r\noutperforming conventional representations. Performance declined substantially\r\nunder sequence-clustered and polymer-family-based evaluations, underscoring\r\nthe difficulty of generalizing to remote enzymes and previously unseen\r\npolymer classes. Incorporating polymer representations consistently\r\nimproved predictive performance, particularly for sequence- and descriptor-based\r\nprotein models, while multimodal combinations provided the greatest\r\nbenefit under the most challenging evaluation settings. Ablation and\r\nSHAP analyses revealed an increasing reliance on learned protein and\r\npolymer embeddings as model complexity increased. A quantitative cost-benefit\r\nanalysis further showed that conventional polymer descriptors provided\r\nthe best balance between predictive performance, model reliability,\r\nand computational efficiency, whereas increasingly complex learned\r\npolymer representations yielded only modest additional gains. Overall,\r\nthis study provides a practical framework for evaluating protein and\r\npolymer representations and offers guidance for developing more robust,\r\ngeneralizable, and computationally efficient machine learning models\r\nfor enzyme–polymer interaction prediction.</p>","PeriodicalId":7008,"journal":{"name":"ACS ES&T engineering","volume":"6 9","pages":"2688–2705"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS ES&T engineering","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acsestengg.6c00559","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ENVIRONMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Machine learning is increasingly being used to identify
plastic-degrading
enzymes (plastizymes), yet systematic evaluations of how different
protein and polymer representations influence predictive performance,
generalization, and computational cost remain lacking. Here, we systematically
evaluated protein–polymer representation strategies using a
curated data set of 720 enzyme–polymer interactions spanning
seven polymer families. Handcrafted and learned protein and polymer
representations, including transformer-based embeddings, graph representations,
molecular descriptors, molecular fingerprints, and polymer language
model embeddings, were evaluated individually and in multimodal combinations.
Models were assessed using random, MMseqs2 sequence-clustered, and
leave-one-polymer-family-out splits to quantify both in-distribution
performance and out-of-distribution generalization. Under random splits,
several multimodal models achieved excellent predictive performance
(AUROC > 0.95), with transformer-based protein embeddings consistently
outperforming conventional representations. Performance declined substantially
under sequence-clustered and polymer-family-based evaluations, underscoring
the difficulty of generalizing to remote enzymes and previously unseen
polymer classes. Incorporating polymer representations consistently
improved predictive performance, particularly for sequence- and descriptor-based
protein models, while multimodal combinations provided the greatest
benefit under the most challenging evaluation settings. Ablation and
SHAP analyses revealed an increasing reliance on learned protein and
polymer embeddings as model complexity increased. A quantitative cost-benefit
analysis further showed that conventional polymer descriptors provided
the best balance between predictive performance, model reliability,
and computational efficiency, whereas increasingly complex learned
polymer representations yielded only modest additional gains. Overall,
this study provides a practical framework for evaluating protein and
polymer representations and offers guidance for developing more robust,
generalizable, and computationally efficient machine learning models
for enzyme–polymer interaction prediction.
期刊介绍:
ACS ES&T Engineering publishes impactful research and review articles across all realms of environmental technology and engineering, employing a rigorous peer-review process. As a specialized journal, it aims to provide an international platform for research and innovation, inviting contributions on materials technologies, processes, data analytics, and engineering systems that can effectively manage, protect, and remediate air, water, and soil quality, as well as treat wastes and recover resources.
The journal encourages research that supports informed decision-making within complex engineered systems and is grounded in mechanistic science and analytics, describing intricate environmental engineering systems. It considers papers presenting novel advancements, spanning from laboratory discovery to field-based application. However, case or demonstration studies lacking significant scientific advancements and technological innovations are not within its scope.
Contributions containing experimental and/or theoretical methods, rooted in engineering principles and integrated with knowledge from other disciplines, are welcomed.