InstructPro2: Natural Language and Biological Grounding Guided De Novo Protein Design
Authors: Charles Novak, Zhenqiao Song, Chuan Li, Jianwen Xie, Lei Li
Organizations: Ray and Stephanie Lane Computational Biology Department, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA · Language Technologies Institute, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA · Lambda Inc, San Francisco, CA 94105, USA
The ability to generate proteins with desired functions is a central goal of computational biology. Although natural language can express diverse design objectives, existing protein generation methods often support only narrow tasks or make limited use of biological constraints. We develop InstructPro2 to translate natural-language design objectives into protein sequences while incorporating task-specific biological context. A text encoder captures the design instructions, while dedicated ligand and antigen encoders provide biological context to the sequence-generating decoder. For pretraining, we assemble InstructPro2Bench, comprising 205.7 million <function description, protein> pairs from UniProtKB. We subsequently adapt the model to ligand-binding protein and antibody design. On functional protein generation benchmarks, InstructPro2 outperforms Pinal, the strongest baseline, achieving a functional recovery F1 of 74.8 versus 62.2 and lowering global RMSD from 5.33A to 3.04A. For antibody design, the model obtains a DockQ score of 0.39, while ligand-binding protein design reaches a docking success rate of 72.6%. These findings highlight how integrating language-based instructions with biological conditioning can extend protein generation to distinct design settings.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: Overview of the InstructPro2 architecture. (a) During pretraining : natural-language function descriptions are encoded by the text encoder, and then the protein decoder takes the encoded representations as prefix to generate a consistent protein sequence. (b) During fine-tuning: biological grounding is incorporated alongside textual representations to enable contextually realistic protein design for real-world applications, such as ligand binding and antibody engineering.
Figure 2: Automated pipeline to construct InstructPro2Bench
Model
pLDDT ↑
Gl. RMSD (Å) ↓
Core RMSD (Å) ↓
Gl. < 2Å (%) ↑
Core < 2Å (%) ↑
F1 ↑
ProGen2 (2.7B)
68.49
7.80
6.05
43.5
47.4
53.3
ESM3 (1.4B)
74.51
10.78
7.65
23.3
31.8
40.0
ESM3 (7B)
77.06
8.93
5.76
29.6
45.7
52.5
Pinal (1B)
86.25
5.33
5.49
33.5
52.0
62.2
InstructPro2
84.48
3.04
2.69
63.5
67.3
74.8
Table 1: Pretrained model performance on InstructPro2Bench. InstructPro2 achieves the best performance across all the function evaluation and structure accuracy metrics, showing its strong capability of designing proteins following human instructions.
Model
pLDDT ↑
ipTM ↑
DockQ ↑
Ground Truth
87.92
0.62
–
ESM3
86.47
0.50
0.29
Pinal
78.65
0.38
0.17
ProGen2
82.35
0.49
0.28
RefineGNN
85.60
0.52
0.38
InstructPro2-Ab
86.48
0.55
0.39
Table 2: Model performance on antibody design task.
Model
pLDDT ↑
ipTM ↑
Pocket RMSD (Å) ↓
Succ < 2Å (%) ↑
GNINA Affinity ↓
Ground Truth
89.63
0.92
–
–
-7.35
ESM3
46.68
0.29
12.33
1.2
-0.13
Pinal
84.89
0.89
4.21
53.9
-6.32
ProGen2
82.76
0.80
4.14
66.5
-6.96
Proteina-complexa
73.58
0.62
11.59
0.1
-5.25
InstructPro-3B
89.09
0.90
3.40
67.9
-7.64
Table 3: Ligand-binding protein design, seen ligands. InstructPro2-Lb places the binding pocket most accurately and succeeds on the most targets. All models are evaluated on the 1,288 targets completed by every method.
Model
pLDDT ↑
ipTM ↑
Pocket RMSD (Å) ↓
Succ < 2Å (%) ↑
GNINA Affinity ↓
Ground Truth
89.01
0.92
–
–
-4.48
ESM3
51.01
0.36
10.85
0.0
-0.01
Pinal
90.51
0.90
2.56
78.3
-4.47
ProGen2
86.12
0.85
2.47
81.5
-4.45
Proteina-complexa
85.09
0.70
9.38
0.0
-2.73
InstructPro-3B
90.33
0.88
3.05
70.0
-4.81
Table 4: Ligand-binding protein design for unseen ligands, testing generalization to ligands not observed during training. InstructPro2-Lb places the binding pocket most accurately while matching the best baseline on success rate. All models are evaluated on the 126 targets completed by every method.
Figure 3: Analysis of decoding strategy and modality conditioning. (a) Greedy decoding against nucleus sampling ( p=0.95 , τ=0.8 ) on InstructPro2Bench. (b) InstructPro2-Ab and (c–d) InstructPro2-Lb, each with and without the auxiliary modality encoder.
Figure 4: Case studies of the fine-tuned InstructPro2 designs. Designed structures are shown in blue, ground-truth structures in orange, and the antigen in gray. Full prompts are provided in Appendix D . Both cases show strong binding to the binding partner, demonstrating InstructPro2’s ability to leverage both human instructions and biological context to design functional proteins.
Appendix figures & tables3 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Component
Examples
Description
Primary (SAbDab + blueprints)
4,907
Train 4,030 / Val 433 / Test 444
Heavy-chain-only supplement
13,407
Template descriptions; of 15,124 processed
Heavy+antigen supplement
3,287
Post CDR-H3 dedup, from 5,316 raw
Total
21,601
Appendix
Table 5: Composition of the Stage 2 antibody corpus.
Component
Parameters
S1
S2
ProGen2-large-BFD90 backbone (32 layers, d=2560 )
2,648,232,992
✓
✓
Protein LM head
131,123,200
✓
✓
Text encoder (PubMedBERT, first 3 layers)
45,102,336
✓
frozen
Text projection Wp ( 768→2560 )
1,968,640
✓
✓
Text reconstruction head (3 layers + LM head)
46,704,956
✓
✓
Gated cross-attention adapters ( 8× )
209,838,088
–
✓
Appendix
Table 6: Component-level parameter counts, measured from the released Stage 2 checkpoint. “S1” and “S2” indicate whether a component is updated in Stage 1 (pretraining) and Stage 2 (finetuning). The adapters and modality projections are introduced in Stage 2 and therefore do not exist during Stage 1; the Stage 1 model accordingly contains 2,990,576,029 parameters, of which 2,873,132,124 are trainable.
Figure 5: Additional case studies of InstructPro2-Ab or InstructPro2-Lb designs. Each row shows the natural-language input prompt (left), the designed structure superimposed on the ground-truth structure (middle), and a close-up of the binding region (right). Designed structures are shown in blue and ground-truth structures in orange; the antigen is shown in grey in the antibody designs. Ligand-binding designs are marked as drawn from the seen or unseen evaluation split. Ligand prompts are abbreviated (…) for space, with complete descriptions in Appendix D .
A central challenge in de novo protein design is generating proteins with desired structural and functional properties. Existing design models typically require a dedicated input representation for each property, limiting the design objectives they support. We develop Prompteina, the first all-atom structure generation model that supports new and broader design objectives specified in natural language, analogous to text-to-image generation. To train Prompteina, we construct Prompteina-Data, a paired text--protein structure dataset of 1.8M structures and 50M+ captions describing global and residue-specific structural and functional properties. We adapt Proteina-Complexa, a pretrained structure generation model, through text-conditioned pretraining and finetuning that aligns residues with their corresponding text. Prompteina outperforms baselines on 15 of 18 structural properties and generates proteins that more closely match descriptions of their intended functions. In binder design, it leads baselines on at least 13 of 20 targets and improves interface confidence by 14% over the strongest baseline. With iterative in silico feedback, Prompteina's gain over non-iterative generation is 57% larger than the next-best baseline on the hardest targets. Finally, we experimentally validate Prompteina designs against GM2A, a target with no reported de novo binders. We identify nine binders, with the strongest at an apparent KD of 107 nM. These results establish natural language as an effective and powerful conditioning interface for protein structure generation.
Joseph Lee, Yanjing Li, Bo Qiang +7
University of Washington · National University of Singapore · Allen Institute for AI (Ai2) +1
Deep learning in de novo protein design has achieved atomic-level fidelity. However, existing models remain largely non-deliberative: they directly synthesize molecular geometries without explicitly reasoning about which residues or interactions are functionally essential. As a result, design decisions are entangled with continuous sampling dynamics, limiting interpretability, controllability, and systematic reuse of biochemical knowledge. We introduce Proteo-R1, a reasoning-guided protein design framework that explicitly decouples molecular understanding from geometric generation. Proteo-R1 adopts a dual-expert architecture in which a multimodal large language model (MLLM) serves as an understanding expert, analyzing protein sequences, structures, and textual context to identify key functional residues that govern binding and specificity. These residue-level decisions are then passed as hard constraints to a separate diffusion-based generation expert, which performs conditional co-design while respecting the fixed interaction anchors. This factorization mirrors how human experts approach molecular engineering: first, reasoning about critical interactions, then optimizing geometry subject to those constraints. By operationalizing reasoning as explicit residue-level commitments rather than latent textual guidance, Proteo-R1 achieves stable, interpretable, and modular integration of LLM reasoning with state-of-the-art geometric generative models. Code, data, and demos are available at https://smiles724.github.io/r1/.
We present AMix-2, a protein-text foundation model that establishes protein as a native modality in large language models (LLMs), unifying protein understanding and sequence design within a single foundation model. AMix-2 is built upon two key ideas: (1) a unified protein-text formulation that embeds natural language and protein sequence in a shared token space, enabling one model to perform biological reasoning and conditional design instead of separate downstream task-specialized models; and (2) a block-wise diffusion language modeling backbone that combines causal generation across blocks with bidirectional context and iterative refinement within blocks. This scheme better matches the intrinsic nature of proteins than a strict left-to-right factorization. To evaluate protein foundation models under realistic generalization settings, we further introduce ProteinArena, a comprehensive benchmark with time-aware and homology-aware protocols across various understanding and design tasks, and with baselines covering classical bioinformatics tools, protein-specialized models and LLMs. On ProteinArena, AMix-2 outperforms frontier LLMs and demonstrates competitive performance to task-specific protein models. Controlled experiments further show that the diffusion-based paradigm generally surpasses its autoregressive counterpart, highlighting the advantage of flexible generation order for protein sequences. We release both AMix-2 and ProteinArena to facilitate open research in protein foundation models.
Keyue Qiu, Yixin Wu, Lihao Wang +19
1Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory · Institute for AI Industry Research (AIR), Tsinghua University