henhaobio
Sign in

bioRxivBioinformaticsPreprint

Deep Recurrent Neural Network for Protein Function Prediction from Sequence

Xueliang Leon LiuiD

PDFDOI

Abstract

As high-throughput biological sequencing becomes faster and cheaper, the need to extract useful information from sequencing becomes ever more paramount, often limited by low-throughput experimental characterizations. For proteins, accurate prediction of their functions directly from their primary amino-acid sequences has been a long standing challenge. Here, machine learning using artificial recurrent neural networks (RNN) was applied towards classification of protein function directly from primary sequence without sequence alignment, heuristic scoring or feature engineering. The RNN models containing long-short-term-memory (LSTM) units trained on public, annotated datasets from UniProt achieved high performance for in-class prediction of four important protein functions tested, particularly compared to other machine learning algorithms using sequence-derived protein features. RNN models were used also for out-of-class predictions of phylogenetically distinct protein families with similar functions, including proteins of the CRISPR-associated nuclease, ferritin-like iron storage and cytochrome P450 families. Applying the trained RNN models on the partially unannotated UniRef100 database predicted not only candidates validated by existing annotations but also currently unannotated sequences. Some RNN predictions for the ferritin-like iron sequestering function were experimentally validated, even though their sequences differ significantly from known, characterized proteins and from each other and cannot be easily predicted using popular bioinformatics methods. As sequencing and experimental characterization data increases rapidly, the machine-learning approach based on RNN could be useful for discovery and prediction of homologues for a wide range of protein functions.

In-depth summary

Claude Opus 5.5 · xhigh effort · 17 Oct 2026 · from the full text of version 1 (28 Jan 2017)

Bidirectional LSTMs read raw amino-acid sequence to call protein function without alignment; ten unannotated iron-sequestration candidates flagged in UniRef100 lowered free iron when expressed in E. coli.

Alignment and profile methods such as BLAST, PSI-BLAST and jackhmmer infer function from similarity, so they are weakest on proteins that converged on a function with little overall sequence homology, like the protease catalytic triad. Here bidirectional long short-term memory (LSTM) networks are trained on raw UniProt sequences with no alignment, scoring function or engineered features, and their unannotated hits are then tested in cells.

Key results

  1. ShownOn randomly held-out UniProt sequences the classifiers separated each of four function classes - ferritin-like iron sequestration, cytochrome P450, serine and cysteine proteases, and G-protein coupled receptors - from the rest of SwissProt almost perfectly.

    Positives were keyword-matched in UniProt, negatives were all other reviewed entries (around 550K sequences), split 80/20, with negatives fed in four or more class-balanced chunks for at least five epochs each (ADAM, mini-batch 64). Precision, recall, F1 and ROC area under the curve on the deliberately unbalanced test split are described as close to unity; the per-class values live in tables absent from this text. · In-class Model Training and Validation

  2. ShownGeneralising to phylogenetically distinct families with the same function was far harder, and extra depth helped: recall for the 12-subunit dps cage rose from 0.13 to 0.36 when the recurrent stack was tripled, without losing precision.

    Trained on non-haem ferritin (IPR001519) with bacterioferritin (IPR002024) and tested on dps (IPR002177). Training on Cas9 (IPR028629, 1,201 sequences) and testing on Cpf1 (IPR027620, 55 sequences) gave recall 0.59 when predictions from the first and last 800 residues were averaged, while either terminus alone lost precision. Left-out P450 families were called with sensitivities not quoted in this text. · Out-of-class Training and Prediction

  3. ShownTen predicted iron-sequestering proteins that carried no prior functional annotation all reduced intracellular free iron when expressed in E. coli, and some, notably the 'algae', 'human' and 'archaea' candidates, also made the cells more magnetically retentive.

    Candidates from diverse domains of life were expressed from a rhamnose-inducible plasmid in E. coli BW25113 carrying a fiu-promoter sfGFP iron sensor: all ten raised fluorescence significantly, equivalent to lower free iron, against uninduced cells (P < 0.05, two-tailed Student's t-test), though the 'potato' protein barely shifted it. 'Algae', 'human' and 'archaea' also increased magnetic column retention. · Experimental Validation of Predicted Function; Construction of expression vectors for predicted…; Iron level characterization by genetic sensor

  4. ShownScanning UniRef100 (54 million sequences), the models returned thousands of hits per function that an iterated jackhmmer search missed; most carried an independent family or gene-ontology assignment elsewhere, and a further subset had no UniProt annotation.

    jackhmmer was seeded with FTNA_ECOLI, CP21A_HUMAN, SEPR_HUMAN and FFAR2_HUMAN and run for at least five iterations at the default reporting threshold E = 10.0. Clustal Omega alignment of the unannotated ferritin-class predictions showed many lineages with no obvious shared pattern. Actual hit counts appear only in a table missing from this text. · Database Search and Prediction; In-class Model Training and Validation

  5. ShownThe sequence model outperformed classical classifiers trained on hand-computed descriptors, though the comparison is reported only qualitatively.

    Logistic regression and random forest were fitted to 51 ProtParam features (amino acid composition, length, isoelectric point, molecular weight, stability index, hydrophobicity, GRAVY) with grid-searched hyperparameters on the same four datasets: logistic regression trained fastest and predicted worst, random forest did better but stayed below the RNN. No accuracy figures for the baselines appear in the text. · Comparison of RNN to Other Machine Learning…

Methods, data and reproducibility

Bidirectional LSTM layers consume one-hot amino acids (128 hidden units per neuron, dropout 0.5, sequences padded or capped at 333 residues, up to 800 for long nucleases) and feed a softmax layer over function classes; training used ADAM on keyword-defined UniProt positives against SwissProt negatives in class-balanced chunks, after which the models were scanned over UniRef100 and set against jackhmmer.

  • UniProt keyword-matched positives for the ferritin, P450, protease and GPCR classes against all other reviewed SwissProt entries, split 80/20 into train and test · multiple species · n = around 550K SwissProt sequences
  • UniRef100 database scanned for new predictions and compared with iterated jackhmmer output · n = 54 million sequences
  • InterPro families for out-of-class tests: Cas9 for training and Cpf1 for testing; non-haem ferritin, bacterioferritin and dps; six P450 clusters · n = Cas9 1,201; Cpf1 55; P450 B-class 31,205; E-class-group-II 2,314 · IPR028629, IPR027620, IPR001519, IPR002024, IPR002177, IPR002397
  • Unannotated predicted candidates synthesised as gBlocks and expressed in E. coli for iron-sequestration and magnetic-retention assays · E. coli host; candidates from diverse domains of life · n = 10 proteins
Methods & tools
TensorFlow, scikit-learn, HMMER v3.1b1 (jackhmmer), NCBI BLAST (blastp), Clustal Omega, I-TASSER, ProtParam, UniProt / SwissProt, UniRef100, InterPro, Python
Reagents & environment
Python with the TensorFlow backend for the recurrent models and scikit-learn for logistic regression and random forest; HMMER v3.1b1 (jackhmmer); NCBI BLAST and EMBL-EBI jackhmmer web servers at default cut-offs. No TensorFlow or scikit-learn versions are given.
Assay conditions & compute
Models were written in Python and run on the Harvard Odyssey cluster across CPU and GPU nodes; no runtimes, node counts or memory figures are reported. Inputs longer than 333 residues are said to raise processing and memory cost without improving the four in-class predictors.
Reproducibility gaps
No code repository or trained-model download is named, and no accession list is given for the predicted sequences. Performance tables and figures were dropped in text extraction, so the in-class precision, recall and AUC values and the UniRef100 hit counts cannot be quoted.
Limitations (6)
  • In-class metrics come from a random split of a small, mostly reviewed set of under a million sequences, and the author warns they may not carry over to databases such as UniRef100, where a false positive rate near 1e-6 would be needed. · stated by the authors
  • Random splitting can put near-identical homologues from closely related species into both training and test sets, so in-class performance may be partly inflated by redundancy. · stated by the authors
  • Out-of-class sensitivity and selectivity remain low and need further optimisation, and training on long sequences is slower and more memory-hungry than building and searching PSSMs or hidden Markov models. · stated by the authors
  • Some targets lack training data: fewer than 10,000 CRISPR/Cas9-like nucleases had been identified, and they are mostly longer than 1,000 residues, which strains recurrent training. · stated by the authors
  • No head-to-head benchmark against BLAST or HMMER on a shared labelled set is reported; the UniRef100 comparison counts extra hits without measuring their precision. · noted in this summary
  • Experimental validation covers one function, one reporter system in E. coli and ten proteins, with uninduced cells as the only comparison reported. · noted in this summary

Read this if you work on alignment-free protein function prediction and want an early, experimentally grounded account of what sequence-only LSTMs catch and where out-of-family recall breaks down.

Citations
106

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
THISVazhayil '18Hakala '20Bileschi '22Murali '19Teti '18Nauman '18
71% semantic matchGenomics
Anu Vazhayil, R Vinayakumar, KP Soman·bioRxiv·Sep 12, 2018· 19 citations