MI-PEFT: Mixture-of-Experts Integrated Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning Protein Language Models Improves Acidophilic Proteins Classification

Proteins perform diverse cellular functions, and even single amino-acid substitutions can alter stability, activity, or molecular interactions. Protein language models (PLMs) provide a scalable approach for modeling such sequence--function relationships from unlabeled sequences, but increasing the size of dense Transformer backbones often brings substantial computational cost without consistently improving mutation-sensitive prediction. We introduce ProtLingo, an efficient PLM framework that augments a pretrained single-sequence backbone with conditional local memory and sparse expert routing. ProtLingo maps contextual residue representations into route-specific discrete codes, composes centered local windows into latent $N$-gram addresses, and retrieves reusable residual signals associated with recurring local sequence contexts. In parallel, selected feed-forward blocks are upcycled into sparse Mixture-of-Experts layers with shared and routed experts, enabling residue-dependent computation while activating only a subset of parameters. Experiments on protein fitness prediction, FLIP benchmarks, and supervised contact prediction show that ProtLingo achieves competitive performance with a 150M-scale backbone, including strong parameter efficiency on mutation-effect prediction and preserved long-range structural representations.

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.