- As the taxonomy progresses from broad, coarse-grained catalytic classes (EC .-.-.-)down to highly specific, four-digit reaction profiles (EC x.x.x.x) and targeted families, the challenge of filtering out false positives among closely related sequences scales exponentially. Throughout this entire taxonomic gradient, Boltz2ESI consistently exhibited superior discriminative resolution compared to baseline approaches. Notably, the sustained precision at the deep EC x.x.x.x level indicates that by capturing the adaptive biophysical microenvironment within the active site, our framework effectively untangles tight sub-family specificity that remains hidden to one-dimensional sequencemetrics or rigid-scaffold modeling
Performance claims here are uninterpretable without the evaluation design. How are negatives sampled at each EC depth?
- first localizes the active-sitepocket using Multiple sequence alignment (MSA) guided co-folding, and subsequentlyre-folds the active site and substrate in an MSA-free regime to capture ligand-inducedside-chain and backbone adaptations
Stage 2 being MSA-free is presumably to avoid the consensus/apo bias that deep MSAs impose on side-chain placement. But does stage 2 condition on stage-1 coordinates? If so, evolutionary information persists as a geometric prior, and the ablation that matters is MSA-free stage 2 without the stage-1 pose, otherwise you can't attribute the induced-fit gains to the MSA-free regime.
- From this simulated complex, the framework extracts interaction repre-sentations and a predicted structure to capture local biophysical constraints. Toreconcile this local structure with global biological context, Boltz2ESI fuses these geo-metric descriptors with residue-level evolutionary context derived from ESM3 [28],alongside geometry-aware molecular embeddings [29] and topological fingerprints
Four feature streams, no ablation. Do the topological fingerprints add anything over the molecular embeddings; both substrate-side, presumably overlapping Id guess? And do the geometric descriptors actually survive/lead to signal gain once ESM3 features are present? If ESM3's structure track is used, those two streams overlap by construction, since both descend from the stage-1 co-folded pose; that's also a leakage concern. Separately: stage 1 is MSA-guided, so the pipeline draws on evolutionary information twice. What does the PLM contribute then?