Evaluating Lightweight and Full Fine-Tuning Strategies Against Classical Machine Learning for Protein Function Prediction
Nur Syatila Ab GhaniiD, Takuma Matsushita, Tomohiro NoguchiiD, Yoichi KurumidaiD, Sakiya KawadaiD, Tomoyuki ItoiD, Mitsuo UmetsuiD, Yutaka SaitōiD
Abstract
Motivation Protein language models (PLMs) have emerged as powerful tools for sequence-based prediction of protein function, yet systematic benchmarks comparing frozen embeddings, fine-tuning strategies like Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) and classical machine learning (ML) remain limited. We benchmarked four ML strategies: ML using amino acid descriptors (SL-AAFeat), ML using frozen embeddings from 20 PLMs across various pooling strategies (SL-Embed), full model fine-tuning (FT-Full) and LoRA-based fine-tuning (FT-LoRA). Performance was evaluated on the in-house VHH phage display dataset (VHH) for binding affinity prediction and the TAPE fluorescence dataset (FLS and FLS10) for mutational effect prediction. Results Model performance depended strongly on the dataset and adaptation strategy. Max pooling consistently improved embedding-based models, while amino acid descriptors remained competitive under specific datasets and resource constraints. Fine-tuning generally provided the highest predictive performance, but the advantage is not universal. Hyperparameter optimization significantly enhanced FT-LoRA, enabling it to outperform FT-Full on the VHH dataset with less than 10% model parameter adaptation. In contrast, FT-Full achieved the best performance on FLS and FLS10. Several medium-sized PLMs performed comparably to larger models, highlighting favorable performance-efficiency trade-offs. Overall, this paper presents a thorough review of PLM utilization strategies and practical recommendations for selecting suitable strategies based on dataset characteristics and available computational resources. Availability The source code used in this manuscript is available in a Zenodo repository at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21466255.
02 /Specification & Classification
Click any tag to browse matching papers- Citations
- 0
- Assay
- Research Focus
- Approach
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- Likelihood-based fine-tuning of protein language models for few-shot fitness prediction and design
Alex Hawkins‐Hooker, Shikha Surana, … Paul Duckworth·bioRxiv·May 28, 2024
- Fine-tuning protein language models boosts predictions across diverse tasks
Robert Schmirler, Michael Heinzinger, Burkhard Rost·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Aug 28, 2024
- PLMFit : Benchmarking Transfer Learning with Protein Language Models for Protein Engineering
Thomas Bikias, Evangelos Stamkopoulos, Sai T. Reddy·Briefings in BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Jul 1, 2025
- Protein Language Model Fitness Is a Matter of Preference
Cade Gordon, Amy X. Lu, Pieter Abbeel·bioRxiv·Oct 3, 2024
- Which pLM to choose?
Tobias Senoner, Ivan Koludarov, … Yana Bromberg·bioRxiv·Oct 30, 2025
- A Benchmarking Platform for Assessing Protein Language Models on Function-related Prediction Tasks
Elif Çevrim, Melih Gökay Yiğit, … Tunca Doğan·Methods in molecular biologyPeer-reviewed·Jan 1, 2025