Species phylogenetics using intraprotein residue dependence inferred with protein foundation models
Rohan Ferriols AlibutudiD, Mohammad Erfan MowlaeiiD, Sudhir KumariD
Abstract
Traditional molecular phylogenetic inference uses multiple sequence alignments and amino acid substitution models that generally assume that sites evolve independently. In contrast, protein foundation models (pFMs) are deep learning models that reveal residue dependence patterns within sequences. There are two types of pFMs: Evolutionary Scale Models (esm-pFM) for analyzing individual protein sequences, and MSA Transformer (msat-pFM) models for analyzing MSAs. Using pFMs to analyze sequences produces residue attention matrices (RAMs) and sequence attention matrices (SAMs), respectively. RAMs and SAMs can be used to estimate pairwise distances and, thus, reconstruct phylogenies using the Neighbor-Joining (NJ) method. Here, we compare the performance of RAM-NJ and SAM-NJ phylogenies in reconstructing established species relationships across different proteins and taxon sets. Surprisingly, RAM-NJ phylogenies were generally as accurate as SAM-NJ phylogenies even though RAM inference does not require construction or analysis of an MSA. Our results show that pFM-based analyses can recover species relationships without conventional substitution models or, in the case of RAMs, a multiple sequence alignment. These results suggest that evolutionary relationships are reflected not only in primary sequence differences between species, but also in the sequence-specific patterns of inter-residue dependence produced by pFM analysis of individual sequences. However, pFM phylogenies are less accurate than those obtained with standard maximum likelihood approaches, underscoring the need to further develop methods to harness RAMs and SAMs more effectively.
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
- Do Protein Language Models Learn Phylogeny?
Sanjana Tule, Gabriel Foley, Mikael Bodén A·Briefings in BioinformaticsPeer-reviewed·Nov 22, 2024
- Learning the Language of Phylogeny with MSA Transformer
Ruyi Chen, Gabriel Foley, Mikael Bodén A·Cell SystemsPeer-reviewed·Nov 17, 2025
- Protein language models trained on multiple sequence alignments learn phylogenetic relationships
Umberto Lupo, Damiano Sgarbossa, Anne‐Florence Bitbol·Nature CommunicationsPeer-reviewed·Oct 22, 2022
- A first order approximation of a joint Potts and phylogenetic model
Remco Bouckaert·bioRxiv·Sep 25, 2026
- Relative model fit does not predict topological accuracy in single-gene protein phylogenetics
S. Spielman·bioRxiv·Mar 1, 2020
- A general substitution matrix for structural phylogenetics.
Sriram G. Garg, Georg K. A. Hochberg·Molecular Biology and EvolutionPeer-reviewed·Jun 1, 2025