Sign in
BioinformaticsbioRxiv
Preprint

Self-Supervised Contrastive Learning of Protein Representations By Mutual Information Maximization

Amy X. LuiD, Haoran ZhangiD, Marzyeh GhassemiiD, Alan M MosesiD

Abstract

Pretrained embedding representations of biological sequences which capture meaningful properties can alleviate many problems associated with supervised learning in biology. We apply the principle of mutual information maximization between local and global information as a self-supervised pretraining signal for protein embeddings. To do so, we divide protein sequences into fixed size fragments, and train an autoregressive model to distinguish between subsequent fragments from the same protein and fragments from random proteins. Our model, CPCProt, achieves comparable performance to state-of-the-art self-supervised models for protein sequence embeddings on various downstream tasks, but reduces the number of parameters down to 2% to 10% of benchmarked models. Further, we explore how downstream assessment protocols affect embedding evaluation, and the effect of contrastive learning hyperparameters on empirical performance. We hope that these results will inform the development of contrastive learning methods in protein biology and other modalities.

PDFDOI
Structured summary ↓

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

Abstract summary

Verified abstract synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 18 Oct 2026 · from the abstract

CPCProt pretrains protein embeddings by telling a protein's own next fragment from fragments of random proteins, reportedly matching benchmarked self-supervised models with 2-10% of their parameters.

Pretrained embeddings of biological sequences that capture meaningful properties are put forward as a way to relieve problems with supervised learning in biology, but the embedding models being benchmarked are large. Using mutual information between local fragments and global sequence context as the pretraining signal is offered as a route to similar downstream performance from a far smaller model.

Key results

  1. SuggestedCPCProt embeddings performed comparably to the benchmarked self-supervised protein embedding models on a range of downstream tasks while using far fewer parameters.

    The parameter count is given as 2% to 10% of the benchmarked models; the abstract names neither the downstream tasks nor the baseline models, and reports no metric values for the performance comparison. · Abstract

  2. ClaimedThe paper also examines how downstream assessment protocols affect embedding evaluation, and how contrastive learning hyperparameters affect empirical performance.

    Reported as an exploration accompanying the main comparison; no protocols, hyperparameter settings or resulting differences are quantified in the abstract. · Abstract

Methods, data and reproducibility

Self-supervised pretraining that maximises mutual information between local and global information in a sequence: proteins are cut into fixed-size fragments and an autoregressive model is trained to distinguish a protein's following fragment from fragments drawn from random proteins. The resulting embeddings, CPCProt, are then evaluated on downstream tasks.

Methods & tools
CPCProt
Limitations (2)
  • No downstream task, baseline model or metric value is named in the abstract, so the claim of comparable performance cannot be checked; the parameter reduction is the only quantity reported. · noted in this summary
  • Efficiency is argued from parameter count alone, with nothing on training or inference cost, and the model sees sequence only, with no structural or functional information. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you build or pick protein sequence embeddings and want to know whether a contrastive, mutual-information objective can shrink the model without giving up downstream accuracy.

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.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISWu '24Yanai '26Prabakaran '26Heinzinger '22Oliveira '26Rao '19
64% semantic matchBioinformatics
Kevin Wu, Howard Y. Chang, James Zou·bioRxiv·May 14, 2024· 16 citations