Evaluating transformer-based models for structural characterization of orphan proteins

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-04 · read from full text

The study evaluated several transformer-based models for predicting protein structural features using an expert-curated set of orphan proteins from the Meloidogyne genus, for which no experimentally determined structures exist. Using consistency analyses that compared model predictions to features seen in known homologous protein sets and across different models, the authors found that multiple sequence alignment–based approaches (including AlphaFold2) and single-sequence/embedding-based language model predictors (including ESMFold, OmegaFold, and ProtT5) performed poorly for orphan proteins. The poor performance could not be fully explained by intrinsic disorder, as independent disorder predictors confirmed only partial disorder contributions. Secondary structure elements were captured more reliably, with model agreement of about 70% on average, even when global fold similarity was low, and consistent identification by dedicated secondary-structure tools, while accurate tertiary structure prediction remained out of reach. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Motivation Transformer-based models (TBMs) are state-of-the-art deep learning architectures that predict protein structural features with high accuracy. Despite methodological differences, they all rely on large protein sequence datasets structured by homology, as homologous proteins typically share similar structures. However, 5–30% of eukaryotic proteomes consist of orphan proteins—sequences without detectable similarity to known families. Although they may share structural traits with characterized proteins, their lack of homology makes them and ideal dataset for evaluating TBM generalization beyond familiar sequence space. Results We compared predictions from several widely used TBM architectures on an expert-curated set of orphan proteins from the Meloidogyne genus. None of these proteins has an experimentally determined structure. To assess model performance, we conducted consistency analyses, comparing predicted features with those observed in sets of known homologous proteins and across models. Multiple sequence alignment–based approaches such as AlphaFold2 performed poorly on orphan proteins, as did single-sequence or embedding-based language models including ESMFold, OmegaFold, and ProtT5. This limited performance cannot be fully attributed to intrinsic disorder, as confirmed by independent non-TBM disorder predictors. While accurate tertiary structure prediction remains out of reach, secondary structure is more reliably captured: predictors share about 70% of secondary structure elements on average, regardless of global fold similarity, and these elements are consistently identified by dedicated secondary structure tools. Availability All data and analysis scripts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18788931 Contact [email protected]
Full text 1,881 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · 2 sections · click to expand

Abstract

Motivation Transformer-based models (TBMs) are state-of-the-art deep learning architectures that predict protein structural features with high accuracy. Despite methodological differences, they all rely on large protein sequence datasets structured by homology, as homologous proteins typically share similar structures. However, 5–30% of eukaryotic proteomes consist of orphan proteins—sequences without detectable similarity to known families. Although they may share structural traits with characterized proteins, their lack of homology makes them and ideal dataset for evaluating TBM generalization beyond familiar sequence space.

Results

We compared predictions from several widely used TBM architectures on an expert-curated set of orphan proteins from the Meloidogyne genus. None of these proteins has an experimentally determined structure. To assess model performance, we conducted consistency analyses, comparing predicted features with those observed in sets of known homologous proteins and across models. Multiple sequence alignment–based approaches such as AlphaFold2 performed poorly on orphan proteins, as did single-sequence or embedding-based language models including ESMFold, OmegaFold, and ProtT5. This limited performance cannot be fully attributed to intrinsic disorder, as confirmed by independent non-TBM disorder predictors. While accurate tertiary structure prediction remains out of reach, secondary structure is more reliably captured: predictors share about 70% of secondary structure elements on average, regardless of global fold similarity, and these elements are consistently identified by dedicated secondary structure tools. Availability All data and analysis scripts are available at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18788931 Contact edoardo.sarti{at}inria.fr Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2026) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00