Residue-Level Attributions in Protein Language Models Do Not Recover Allergen Epitopes

Protein language models such as ESM-2 learn rich residue representations that achieve strong performance on protein function prediction, but their features remain difficult to interpret as structural $\&$ evolutionary signals are encoded in dense latent spaces. We propose a plug-$\&$-play framework that projects ESM-2 representations onto protein contact graphs $\&$ applies $\textbf{SoftBlobGIN}$, a lightweight Graph Isomorphism Network with differentiable Gumbel-softmax substructure pooling, to perform structure-aware message passing $\&$ learn coarse functional substructures for downstream prediction tasks. Across enzyme classification, SoftBlobGIN achieves 92.8% accuracy $\&$ 0.898 macro-F1. Unlike post hoc analysis of protein language models alone, our method produces directly auditable structural explanations: GNNExplainer recovers biologically meaningful active-site residues, spatially localized functional clusters, $\&$ catalytic contact patterns. On binding-site detection, SoftBlobGIN improves residue AUROC from $0.885$ using an ESM-2 linear probe to $0.983$, indicating that these structural explanations are not recoverable from language-model features alone. Learned blob partitions provide an additional layer of interpretability by automatically grouping residues into functional substructures, with blobs containing annotated active-site residues showing $1.85\times$ higher importance than other blobs ($ρ{=}0.339$, $p{=}0.009$), without any active-site supervision. Our framework requires no retraining of the language model, adds only $\sim$1.1M parameters, $\&$ generalises across ProteinShake tasks, achieving $F_{\max}$ of $0.733$ on Gene Ontology prediction $\&$ AUROC of $0.969$ on binding-site detection. We position this as an interpretable structural companion to protein language models that makes their predictions more transparent $\&$ auditable.

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.

Protein language models are trained primarily with masked language modeling (MLM), which predicts amino-acid identities at masked positions. We ask whether latent-space prediction can complement these token-level objectives under matched wall-clock budget. Across pretrained and random-init protein sequence encoders at 35--150M parameters, we find that the best protein-JEPA design is not all-position latent prediction but a variant: predicting latent targets only at masked positions, and retaining the MLM cross-entropy. We call this recipe masked-position MLM+JEPA. On a 16-task downstream suite (15 frozen linear probes plus SCOPe-40 zero-shot fold retrieval), under matched wall-clock budgets, this recipe wins more tasks than it loses against MLM-only continuation: 10 wins / 3 losses / 3 ties (hereafter W/L/T) on pretrained ESM2-35M, 11/2/3 on ESM2-150M while results in pretraining from scratch are mixed (6/8/2). Gains are seen for multiple models on 11 of 16 tasks, including stability, \b{eta}β\b{eta}-lactamase fitness, variant effect, intrinsic disorder, remote homology, enzyme classification, and SCOPe-40 fold retrieval. Tasks with more losses than wins are Fluorescence (TAPE) and Peptide-HLA Binding. All-position MLM+JEPA matches MLM-only overall but does not reproduce the masked-position gains. JEPA-only (no MLM) collapses in nearly every experiment. We conclude that JEPA, when combined with MLM, is competitive and can outperform pure MLM in pretraining and continued training, even under matched wall-clock budgets.