Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn’t find a single one that outperforms a general model.
Ok, alphafold.
It’s not a large language model
Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
21–30 of 46 posts
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#22hmmmm seems like some fake hype.
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#23[deleted]
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#24The problem with models like this is they're built on very little actual training data we can trace back to verifiable protein data. The protein data back, and other sources of training data for stuff like this, has a lot of broken structures in them and "creative liberties" taken to infer a structure from instrument data. It's a very complex process that leaves a lot for interpretation.
On top of that, we don't have a clear understanding on how certain positions (conformations) of a structure affect underlying biological mechanisms.
Yes, these models can predict surprisingly accurate structures and sequences. Do we know if these outputs are biologically useful? Not quite.
This technology is amazing, don't get me wrong, but to the average person they might see this and wonder why we can't go full futurism and solve every pathology with models like these.
We've come a long way, but there's still a very very long way to go.
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#25Can someone explain what one might use this model for? As a developer with a casual interest in biology it would be fun to play with but honestly not sure what I would do
You can get your feet wet with genetic engineering for surprisingly little money. This guy shows a lot of how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/@thethoughtemporium Basically you can design/edit/inject custom genes into things and see real results spending on the scale of $100-$1000.
My main concern is using fungi. If it ends up in my lungs I'm most likely screwed, right?
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get your feet wet with genetic engineering for surprisingly little money. This guy shows a lot of how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/@thethoughtemporium Basically you can design/edit/inject custom genes into things and see real results spending on the scale of $100-$1000.
My main concern is using fungi. If it ends up in my lungs I'm most likely screwed, right?
Yes, but most students produce their best work while infected.
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#27HN's blindspots never cease to amaze me.
I am a structural biologist working in pharmaceutical design and this type of thing could be wildly useful (if it works).
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#28full article: https://huggingface.co/blog/OpenMed/training-mrna-models-25-...
Nice work! Here is an article you may find helpful if you have not already come across it.[0]. You may also want to consider benchmarking against some non ML methods.[1]
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can get your feet wet with genetic engineering for surprisingly little money. This guy shows a lot of how it's done: https://www.youtube.com/@thethoughtemporium Basically you can design/edit/inject custom genes into things and see real results spending on the scale of $100-$1000.
My main concern is using fungi. If it ends up in my lungs I'm most likely screwed, right?
This is the classic meme https://www.reddit.com/r/labrats/comments/mmv2ig/lab_strains...
Lab strains of things tend to be extremely sensitive and not human adapted. You shouldn't study and modify human-infecting organisms in your basement anyway. While you shouldn't ignore protective equipment and proper procedure... paranoia about infecting yourself with a lab leak isn't warranted.
Re: Training mRNA Language Models Across 25 Species for $165
#30The problem with models like this is they're built on very little actual training data we can trace back to verifiable protein data. The protein data back, and other sources of training data for stuff like this, has a lot of broken structures in them and "creative liberties" taken to infer a structure from instrument data. It's a very complex process that leaves a lot for interpretation. On top of that, we don't have…
How do we get more verifiable protein data? So even if we had better data, we don't yet understand how the structure impacts the biology?