The generative capacity of probabilistic protein sequence models

Potts models and variational autoencoders (VAEs) have recently gained popularity as generative protein sequence models (GPSMs) to explore fitness landscapes and predict mutation effects. Despite encouraging results, current model evaluation metrics leave unclear whether GPSMs faithfully reproduce th...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Nature communications 2021-11, Vol.12 (1), p.6302-14, Article 6302
Hauptverfasser: McGee, Francisco, Hauri, Sandro, Novinger, Quentin, Vucetic, Slobodan, Levy, Ronald M., Carnevale, Vincenzo, Haldane, Allan
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Potts models and variational autoencoders (VAEs) have recently gained popularity as generative protein sequence models (GPSMs) to explore fitness landscapes and predict mutation effects. Despite encouraging results, current model evaluation metrics leave unclear whether GPSMs faithfully reproduce the complex multi-residue mutational patterns observed in natural sequences due to epistasis. Here, we develop a set of sequence statistics to assess the “generative capacity” of three current GPSMs: the pairwise Potts Hamiltonian, the VAE, and the site-independent model. We show that the Potts model’s generative capacity is largest, as the higher-order mutational statistics generated by the model agree with those observed for natural sequences, while the VAE’s lies between the Potts and site-independent models. Importantly, our work provides a new framework for evaluating and interpreting GPSM accuracy which emphasizes the role of higher-order covariation and epistasis, with broader implications for probabilistic sequence models in general. Generative models have become increasingly popular in protein design, yet rigorous metrics that allow the comparison of these models are lacking. Here, the authors propose a set of such metrics and use them to compare three popular models.
ISSN:2041-1723
2041-1723
DOI:10.1038/s41467-021-26529-9