Cited by 108Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 54 of the 55 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Biophysical prediction of protein–peptide interactions and signaling networks using machine learning

Open access
Cunningham, Joseph M., Rogers, Julia R., Koytiger, Grigoriy, Sorger, Peter K., AlQuraishi, Mohammed·2020·Nature Methods

Abstract

In mammalian cells, much of signal transduction is mediated by weak protein-protein interactions between globular peptide-binding domains (PBDs) and unstructured peptidic motifs in partner proteins. The number and diversity of these PBDs (over 1,800 are known), their low binding affinities and the sensitivity of binding properties to minor sequence variation represent a substantial challenge to experimental and computational analysis of PBD specificity and the networks PBDs create. Here, we introduce a bespoke machine-learning approach, hierarchical statistical mechanical modeling (HSM), capable of accurately predicting the affinities of PBD-peptide interactions across multiple protein families. By synthesizing biophysical priors within a modern machine-learning framework, HSM outperforms existing computational methods and high-throughput experimental assays. HSM models are interpretable in familiar biophysical terms at three spatial scales: the energetics of protein-peptide binding, the multidentate organization of protein-protein interactions and the global architecture of signaling networks.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41592-019-0687-1

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Cesareni, G., Gimona, M., Sudol, M. & Yaffe, M. Modular Protein Domains (John Wiley & Sons, 2006).
  2. Goldstein, H., Poole Jr., C. P. & Safko, J. L. Classical Mechanics (Addison-Wesley, 2001).
  3. Kundu, K. et al. Semi-supervised prediction of SH2-peptide interactions from imbalanced high-throughput data. PLoS One 8, e62732 (2013). · DOI
  4. Kundu, K. & Backofen, R. Cluster based prediction of PDZ-peptide interactions. BMC Genomics 15, S5 (2014). · DOI
  5. Horn, H. et al. KinomeXplorer: an integrated platform for kinome biology studies. Nat. Methods 11, 603–604 (2014). · DOI
  6. Goodfellow, I, Bengio, Y. & Courville, A. Deep Learning. (MIT Press, 2016).
  7. Snell, J., Swersky, K. & Zemel, R. S. in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems Vol. 30 (eds Guyon, I. et al.) 4077–4087 (Curran Associates, Inc., 2017).
  8. Shah, N. H., Lobel, M., Weiss, A. & Kuriyan, J. Fine-tuning of substrate preferences of the Src-family kinase Lck revealed through a high-throughput specificity screen. eLife 7, e35190 (2018). · DOI
  9. Kundu, K., Costa, F. & Backofen, R. A graph kernel approach for alignment-free domain-peptide interaction prediction with an application to human SH3 domains. Bioinformatics 29, i335–i343 (2013). · DOI
  10. Hu, F. Efficient and high quality force-directed graph. Mathemtica J. 10, 37–71 (2005).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 108

Metadata

Authors
Cunningham, J. M., Rogers, J. R., Koytiger, G., Sorger, P. K., & AlQuraishi, M.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Sorger, Peter K.
  • AlQuraishi, Mohammed
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2020-01-06
Volume
17
Issue
2
Pages
175-183
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W2997482957
Cited by
108
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 10
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • United States Department of Defense | Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (W911NF-14-1-0397)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Cancer Institute (U54-CA225088)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (P50-GM107618)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
protein-peptide interactions, peptide-binding domain, protein-protein interaction, signal transduction, signaling networks, binding affinity prediction, model interpretability
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Humans, Peptides, Protein Binding, Proteins, Reproducibility of Results, Signal Transduction, src Homology Domains, Biophysical Phenomena

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