The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prediction‐based fingerprints of protein–protein interactions
Abstract
The recognition of protein interaction sites is an important intermediate step toward identification of functionally relevant residues and understanding protein function, facilitating experimental efforts in that regard. Toward that goal, the authors propose a novel representation for the recognition of protein–protein interaction sites that integrates enhanced relative solvent accessibility (RSA) predictions with high resolution structural data. An observation that RSA predictions are biased toward the level of surface exposure consistent with protein complexes led the authors to investigate the difference between the predicted and actual (i.e., observed in an unbound structure) RSA of an amino acid residue as a fingerprint of interaction sites. The authors demonstrate that RSA prediction‐based fingerprints of protein interactions significantly improve the discrimination between interacting and noninteracting sites, compared with evolutionary conservation, physicochemical characteristics, structure‐derived and other features considered before. On the basis of these observations, the authors developed a new method for the prediction of protein–protein interaction sites, using machine learning approaches to combine the most informative features into the final predictor. For training and validation, the authors used several large sets of protein complexes and derived from them nonredundant representative chains, with interaction sites mapped from multiple complexes. Alternative machine learning techniques are used, including Support Vector Machines and Neural Networks, so as to evaluate the relative effects of the choice of a representation and a specific learning algorithm. The effects of induced fit and uncertainty of the negative (noninteracting) class assignment are also evaluated. Several representative methods from the literature are reimplemented to enable direct comparison of the results. Using rigorous validation protocols, the authors estimated that the new method yields the overall classification accuracy of about 74% and Matthews correlation coefficients of 0.42, as opposed to up to 70% classification accuracy and up to 0.3 Matthews correlation coefficient for methods that do not utilize RSA prediction‐based fingerprints. The new method is available at http://sppider.cchmc.org. Proteins 2007. © 2006 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
LIBSVM: A library for support vector machines
Chang, C.-C., & Lin, C.-J. (2011) · ACM Transactions on Intelligent Systems and Technology · doi:10.1145/1961189.1961199 · Cited by 40,918
Kabsch, W., & Sander, C. (1983) · Biopolymers · doi:10.1002/bip.360221211 · Cited by 15,320
Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme
Matthews, B. W. (1975) · Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Protein Structure · doi:10.1016/0005-2795(75)90109-9 · Cited by 5,399
Principles of protein-protein interactions
Jones, S., & Thornton, J. M. (1996) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.93.1.13 · Cited by 2,684
Detecting Protein Function and Protein-Protein Interactions from Genome Sequences
Marcotte, E. M., Pellegrini, M., Ng, H.-L., Rice, D. W., Yeates, T. O., & Eisenberg, D. (1999) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.285.5428.751 · Cited by 1,670
Unraveling hot spots in binding interfaces: progress and challenges
DeLano, W. L. (2002) · Current Opinion in Structural Biology · doi:10.1016/s0959-440x(02)00283-x · Cited by 767
Cited by
The Global Phosphorylation Landscape of SARS-CoV-2 Infection
Bouhaddou, M., Memon, D., Meyer, B., White, K. M., Rezelj, V. V., Correa Marrero, M., Polacco, B. J., Melnyk, J. E., Ulferts, S., Kaake, R. M., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.06.034 · Cited by 1,020
Deciphering interaction fingerprints from protein molecular surfaces using geometric deep learning
Gainza, P., Sverrisson, F., Monti, F., Rodolà, E., Boscaini, D., Bronstein, M. M., & Correia, B. E. (2020) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-019-0666-6 · Cited by 834
CPORT: A Consensus Interface Predictor and Its Performance in Prediction-Driven Docking with HADDOCK
de Vries, S. J., & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017695 · Cited by 324
Zeng, M., Zhang, F., Wu, F.-X., Li, Y., Wang, J., & Li, M. (2020) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btz699 · Cited by 281
Tubiana, J., Schneidman-Duhovny, D., & Wolfson, H. J. (2022) · Nature Methods · doi:10.1038/s41592-022-01490-7 · Cited by 274
Metadata
- Authors
- Porollo, A., & Meller, J.
- Venue
- Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2006-12-06
- Volume
- 66
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 630-645
- ISSN
- 0887-3585 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0134
- OpenAlex
- W2141627824
- Cited by
- 436
- References
- 6
- FWCI
- 2.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.