Cited by 27vaccines and immunoinformatics approachesMachine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Structure and Dynamics

Sliding Window Interaction Grammar (SWING): a generalized interaction language model for peptide and protein interactions

Open access
Siwek, Jane C., Omelchenko, Alisa A., Chhibbar, Prabal, Arshad, Sanya, Rosengart, AnnaElaine, Nazarali, Iliyan, Patel, Akash, Nazarali, Kiran +6 more·2025·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The explosion of sequence data has allowed the rapid growth of protein language models (pLMs). pLMs have now been employed in many frameworks including variant-effect and peptide-specificity prediction. Traditionally, for protein-protein or peptide-protein interactions (PPIs), corresponding sequences are either co-embedded followed by post-hoc integration or the sequences are concatenated prior to embedding. Interestingly, no method utilizes a language representation of the interaction itself. We developed an interaction LM (iLM), which uses a novel language to represent interactions between protein/peptide sequences. Sliding Window Interaction Grammar (SWING) leverages differences in amino acid properties to generate an interaction vocabulary. This vocabulary is the input into a LM followed by a supervised prediction step where the LM's representations are used as features. SWING was first applied to predicting peptide:MHC (pMHC) interactions. SWING was not only successful at generating Class I and Class II models that have comparable prediction to state-of-the-art approaches, but the unique Mixed Class model was also successful at jointly predicting both classes. Further, the SWING model trained only on Class I alleles was predictive for Class II, a complex prediction task not attempted by any existing approach. For de novo data, using only Class I or Class II data, SWING also accurately predicted Class II pMHC interactions in murine models of SLE (MRL/lpr model) and T1D (NOD model), that were validated experimentally. To further evaluate SWING's generalizability, we tested its ability to predict the disruption of specific protein-protein interactions by missense mutations. Although modern methods like AlphaMissense and ESM1b can predict interfaces and variant effects/pathogenicity per mutation, they are unable to predict interaction-specific disruptions. SWING was successful at accurately predicting the impact of both Mendelian mutations and population variants on PPIs. This is the first generalizable approach that can accurately predict interaction-specific disruptions by missense mutations with only sequence information. Overall, SWING is a first-in-class generalizable zero-shot iLM that learns the language of PPIs.

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/s41592-025-02723-1

Cites

11 of 11 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Siwek, J. C., Omelchenko, A. A., Chhibbar, P., Arshad, S., Rosengart, A., Nazarali, I., Patel, A., Nazarali, K., Rahimikollu, J., Tilstra, J. S., Shlomchik, M. J., Koes, D. R., Joglekar, A. V., & Das, J.
Affiliations
University of Pittsburgh (US)
Corresponding author
  • Joglekar, Alok V.
  • Das, Jishnu
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2025-07-28
Volume
22
Issue
8
Pages
1707-1719
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W4412692505
Cited by
27
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 1
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (DP2AI164325)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Human Genome Research Institute (U01HG012041)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › vaccines and immunoinformatics approaches
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
protein-protein interaction, peptide-MHC interaction, MHC class I, MHC class II, amino acid properties, zero-shot prediction, protein language models, systemic lupus erythematosus, type 1 diabetes, risk alleles

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