mlsanityData to 14 Oct 2026

Boltzmann-Aligned Inverse Folding Model as a Predictor of Mutational Effects on Protein-Protein Interactions

arXiv 2410.09543 ↗First posted 12 Oct 2024cs.CE cs.AI q-bio.BMcited by 5

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Predicting the change in binding free energy (Delta Delta G) is crucial for understanding and modulating protein-protein interactions, which are critical in drug design. Due to the scarcity of experimental Delta Delta G data, existing methods focus on pre-training, while neglecting the importance of alignment. In this work, we propose the Boltzmann Alignment technique to transfer knowledge from pre-trained inverse folding models to Delta Delta G prediction. We begin by analyzing the thermodynamic definition of Delta Delta G and introducing the Boltzmann distribution to connect energy with protein conformational distribution. However, the protein conformational distribution is intractable; therefore, we employ Bayes' theorem to circumvent direct estimation and instead utilize the log-likelihood provided by protein inverse folding models for Delta Delta G estimation. Compared to previous inverse folding-based methods, our method explicitly accounts for the unbound state of protein complex in the Delta Delta G thermodynamic cycle, introducing a physical inductive bias and achieving both supervised and unsupervised state-of-the-art (SoTA) performance. Experimental results on SKEMPI v2 indicate that our method achieves Spearman coefficients of 0.3201 (unsupervised) and 0.5134 (supervised), significantly surpassing the previously reported SoTA values of 0.2632 and 0.4324, respectively. Futhermore, we demonstrate the capability of our method on binding energy prediction, protein-protein docking and antibody optimization tasks.

Key facts. Cited by 5 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). Builds on 19 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 12 Oct 2024.

Builds on

19 of 49 references.

References · 19

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,971
  2. 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 15,215
  3. 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 8,065
  4. 2024SimPO: Simple Preference Optimization with a Reference-Free Rewardcited by 963
  5. 2023A General Theoretical Paradigm to Understand Learning from Human Preferencescited by 912
  6. 2024Negative Preference Optimization: From Catastrophic Collapse to Effective Unlearningcited by 504
  7. 2024AlphaFold Meets Flow Matching for Generating Protein Ensemblescited by 110
  8. 2022Tranception: protein fitness prediction with autoregressive transformers and inference-time retrievalcited by 79
  9. 2023EigenFold: Generative Protein Structure Prediction with Diffusion Modelscited by 63
  10. 2023Direct Preference-based Policy Optimization without Reward Modelingcited by 36
  11. 2018End-to-End Learning on 3D Protein Structure for Interface Predictioncited by 33
  12. 2023DiffDock-PP: Rigid Protein-Protein Docking with Diffusion Modelscited by 24
7 more
  1. 2024Learning to Predict Mutation Effects of Protein-Protein Interactions by Microenvironment-aware Hierarchical Prompt Learningcited by 11
  2. 2023Predicting mutational effects on protein-protein binding via a side-chain diffusion probabilistic modelcited by 9
  3. 2023Preference Optimization for Molecular Language Modelscited by 7
  4. 2024Aligning Transformers with Continuous Feedback via Energy Rank Alignmentcited by 7
  5. 2024Preference Optimization for Molecule Synthesis with Conditional Residual Energy-based Modelscited by 6
  6. 2024Multi-level Interaction Modeling for Protein Mutational Effect Predictioncited by 5
  7. 2024Preference optimization of protein language models as a multi-objective binder design paradigmcited by 4

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 5.

5 papers.