BiologyarXiv

Ranked by formulaVerdict: Notable

Evolutionary Informed Translation from Protein to Nucleic Acid Sequence

The choice of nucleic acid sequence for a given protein strongly impacts function and is species-specific.

By Hart, El-Kebir, Zhao +1

Score████░░░░░░4.4

Caveats

  • Preprint; not yet peer reviewed.

VerdictWorth a reader's time today.

Read the originalPDF

Abstract

The choice of nucleic acid sequence for a given protein strongly impacts function and is species-specific. Current protein-to-nucleic-acid translation models treat sequences in isolation, often over-favoring frequently used codons. To generate more natural nucleic acid sequences, we introduce PINATA (Phylogenetically Informed protein to Nucleic Acid Translation with sequence Alignment), a model that leverages sequences from related species encoded in multiple sequence alignments (MSAs) to guide prediction. Our architecture leverages evolutionary context and learns species-and protein specific context to make biologically-informed predictions. Evaluated across 61,934 gene trees and 882 species, PINATA generates sequences that mirror the naturally-occurring sequence substantially better than existing language models. PINATA leverages MSA data to improve exact native codon recovery by 17.95 percentage points over existing language models, effectively preserves natural rare-codon nuances, and more closely matches native sequence properties. PINATA maintains strong predictive performance even with limited evolutionary data. While previous methods largely treated sequences from different species in isolation, our method leverages the evolutionary relationships between nucleic acids and proteins across species to create a more biologically-informed translation. We demonstrate that leveraging rich evolutionary data through an biologically-designed method strongly aids in translating protein sequences to nucleic acid sequences across species. We will make data and code publicly available upon publication.

Anna Hart, Mohammed El-Kebir, Huimin Zhao, Heng Ji

The editor's rubric

Heuristic review

Leverage4 / 5
A general-purpose tool used across several fields (Adam, ResNet, LoRA, next-generation sequencing).
24% of this desk’s rubric
Magnitude3 / 5
Large gain: roughly 2x, or a clear new state of the art on a hard, unsaturated problem.
16% of this desk’s rubric
Evidence3 / 5
Solid: multiple benchmarks or cohorts, ablations, fair baselines, released code or data.
20% of this desk’s rubric
Novelty3 / 5
A genuinely new approach to an open problem.
20% of this desk’s rubric
Trajectory2 / 5
Some room to improve with obvious engineering.
10% of this desk’s rubric
Stakes2 / 5
Benefits a professional community (practitioners, clinicians, engineers).
10% of this desk’s rubric

Editor’s rationale

Heuristic triage from title and abstract text only, not a reading of the paper. Cues found: method (we propose, we report); breadth (many tasks); gains (relative gain); novelty (new kind); verification (multiple benchmarks, code released).

How the score was computed

rank-2026-10-18

Score████░░░░░░4.4

Score = 10 × (75% × adjusted merit / 10 + 15% × attention + 10% × freshness)

Desks place stronger verdicts first, then use this score to order work within the same verdict.

Merit
6.1 / 10
Weighted rubric, evidence-gated.
Adjusted merit
4.9 / 10
Shrunk toward the desk prior by editor confidence (42%).
Attention
0%
Citations, upvotes, points, mentions.
Freshness
71%
Half-life decay since publication.

No attention signals recorded yet.

The record

  • Reviewed by heuristic-v7 on Oct 19, 2026, 05:48 UTC. Paper type: method.
  • Categories: q-bio.BM
  • TOP, No.3 in the Biology edition of October 19, 2026.