Ankh-score produces better sequence alignments than AlphaFold3
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein sequence alignment is one of the most fundamental procedures in bioinformatics. Due to its many downstream applications, improvements to this procedure are of great importance. We consider two revolutionary concepts that emerged recently as candidates for improving the state-of-the-art alignment methods: AlphaFold and protein language models such as Ankh, ProtT5, or ESM-C. Alignment improvements can come from the structural alignment of AlphaFold-predicted structures or the scoring based on the similarity of protein embeddings produced by the protein language models. Thorough comparison on many domains from BAliBASE and CDD demonstrates that the Ankh-score method produces much better sequence alignments than the structural alignments using US-align of AlphaFold3-predicted structures. Both are better than the traditional method using BLOSUM matrices. This suggests that Ankh embeddings may possess certain information that is not available in the AlphaFold3-predicted structures. The alignment software is freely available as a web server at e-score.csd.uwo.ca and as source code at github.com/lucian-ilie/E-score.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.013 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".