Cross-Granularity Representations for Biological Sequences: Insights from ESM and BiGCARP

Biological reasoning models use post-training to connect LLMs to biological foundation model representations and biological text. Their benchmark accuracy is taken as evidence that LLMs reason over these inputs. We test this assumption in six biological reasoning models across DNA, protein, and single-cell tasks. We perturb one biological input while holding the query and other inputs fixed, construct evidence conflicts that pair the foundation model representation of one genome, protein, or cell with the text of another, fit linear probes to the representations the language model receives, and analyze reasoning traces against the biological inputs. Evo2 and ESM3 contribute little to BioReason and BioReason-Pro performance on the evaluated tasks. Shuffling the DNA sequence barely changes BioReason disease prediction accuracy, and in evidence conflicts the two models follow the text in 97.9% and 99.7% of cases. Linear probes trained on the Evo2 and ESM3 representations predict the task targets, so these foundation models encode information relevant to the task, but provide limited overall performance improvement to BioReason and BioReason-Pro. In contrast, foundation model inputs contribute to ChatNT, Prot2Text-V2, and CellWhisperer performance, and differentially expressed genes in the gene sentence contribute to Cell2Sentence-Scale performance. Across SFT and RL checkpoints of BioReason-Pro and 42 BioReason checkpoints, increases in accuracy do not imply greater performance contributions from biological inputs. BioReason traces misstate nucleotide changes, while BioReason-Pro traces describe functions omitted from final predictions under evidence conflicts. We find that current post-training strategies do not ensure that foundation model representations contribute to task performance.

We present BioMatrix, the first multimodal foundation model that natively integrates sequences, structures, and natural language for both molecules and proteins within a single decoder-only architecture. Existing biological foundation models pursue native multimodality and broad entity coverage separately: those that fuse multiple modalities under a shared objective remain confined to a single entity type, while those spanning multiple entity types either omit explicit structural modeling or rely on adapter-based designs in which the model cannot natively generate the very modalities it can read. BioMatrix closes this gap by mapping molecular sequences (supporting both SMILES and SELFIES notations), molecular structures, protein sequences, protein structures, and natural language into a shared discrete token space through a unified tokenization scheme, so that all modalities are consumed and produced uniformly under a single next-token prediction objective -- without external encoders, projection adapters, or modality-specific output heads. Built upon the Qwen3 language model (1.7B and 4B), BioMatrix is continually pretrained on 304.4 billion tokens spanning general and domain-specific text, sequence and structure views of molecules and proteins, and cross-modal corpora that interleave biomolecular entities with scientific text and link distinct entities through molecule-protein and protein-protein interaction data. After tuning on a comprehensive suite of downstream applications covering 80 tasks across 6 categories -- encompassing single-entity and multi-entity understanding and generation tasks across and within modalities -- BioMatrix achieves state-of-the-art or competitive performance on 77 out of 80 tasks, demonstrating that a single, natively multimodal generalist model can effectively match or surpass specialized approaches across a wide range of biological tasks.

Protein language models (PLMs) have transferred the latest advances from natural language processing to computational biology. These models, trained on large corpora of protein sequence data, are widely used to translate amino acid sequences into latent-space embeddings, ready for use in diverse downstream tasks (DTs). By consensus, embeddings from the models' last layers are used, while the models' internal behavior remains poorly understood. We analyzed 13 PLMs across 15 DTs and 9 datasets to assess the value of embeddings from intermediate PLM layers. We trained probe models on embeddings from each layer, compared their performance, and showed that the last layers of PLMs rarely produced embeddings that led to the best results on downstream tasks. Furthermore, we identified a connection between how models learn a certain DT and the similarity between that DT and the pre-training objective. For example, for residue-level downstream tasks, we observed a steady increase in performance across almost all PLM layers, which we attributed to their similarity to most PLMs' pre-training objectives. To allow the community to capitalize on our findings, we provide PLMSommelier, a Python package that automatically identifies the best PLM layer for a given DT with ~98% accuracy and creates a truncated model using only the early layers up to the best-performing layer. This will help users save time and memory during inference and yield better predictive performance.