Self-supervised machine learning methods for protein design improve sampling but not the identification of high-fitness variants.

Machine learning (ML) is changing the world of computational protein design, with data-driven methods surpassing biophysical-based methods in experimental success. However, they are most often reported as case studies, lack integration and standardization, and are therefore hard to objectively compare. In this study, we established a streamlined and diverse toolbox for methods that predict amino acid probabilities inside the Rosetta software framework that allows for the side-by-side comparison of these models. Subsequently, existing protein fitness landscapes were used to benchmark novel ML methods in realistic protein design settings. We focused on the traditional problems of protein design: sampling and scoring. A major finding of our study is that ML approaches are better at purging the sampling space from deleterious mutations. Nevertheless, scoring resulting mutations without model fine-tuning showed no clear improvement over scoring with Rosetta. We conclude that ML now complements, rather than replaces, biophysical methods in protein design.