Predicting and Designing Red Fluorescent Protein Variants Using Sequence-to-Function Machine Learning Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fluorescent proteins (FPs) are widely used reporters for visualizing cellular structures and processes. Traditional wet-lab strategies for FP engineering (rational design and directed evolution) have enabled substantial improvements in photophysical performance but are limited by their requirement for deep expert knowledge or labor-intensive screening. AI-driven approaches have recently gained traction for engineering variants of green FPs, yet applications to red fluorescent proteins (RFPs) remain scarce. Here, we applied machine learning models to an RFP sequence-function dataset and trained these models to predict functional single-mutation variants of the state-of-the-art RFP mScarlet-I3. Guided by model predictions, we identified variants exhibiting red-shifted emission peaks, large Stokes shifts, or brightness comparable to the parental protein. Our findings show that even lightweight, data-efficient models can extract actionable design principles for improving RFPs. This work demonstrates the feasibility of AI-guided design for RFPs and provides a reliable benchmark for future development of more powerful AI-driven strategies for FP engineering.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".