Cracking the black box of deep sequence-based protein–protein interaction prediction
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Identifying protein–protein interactions (PPIs) is crucial for deciphering biological pathways. Numerous prediction methods have been developed as cheap alternatives to biological experiments, reporting surprisingly high accuracy estimates. We systematically investigated how much reproducible deep learning models depend on data leakage, sequence similarities and node degree information, and compared them with basic machine learning models. We found that overlaps between training and test sets resulting from random splitting lead to strongly overestimated performances. In this setting, models learn solely from sequence similarities and node degrees. When data leakage is avoided by minimizing sequence similarities between training and test set, performances become random. Moreover, baseline models directly leveraging sequence similarity and network topology show good performances at a fraction of the computational cost. Thus, we advocate that any improvements should be reported relative to baseline methods in the future. Our findings suggest that predicting PPIs remains an unsolved task for proteins showing little sequence similarity to previously studied proteins, highlighting that further experimental research into the ‘dark’ protein interactome and better computational methods are needed.
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
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.
Cites
Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold
Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., Žídek, A., Potapenko, A., et al. (2021) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03819-2 · Cited by 43,764 · see citing works
Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808 · see citing works
Leakage and the reproducibility crisis in machine-learning-based science
Kapoor, S., & Narayanan, A. (2023) · Patterns · doi:10.1016/j.patter.2023.100804 · Cited by 1,387 · see citing works
Leakage in data mining: Formulation, detection, and avoidance
Kaufman, S., Rosset, S., Perlich, C., & Stitelman, O. (2012) · ACM Transactions on Knowledge Discovery from Data · doi:10.1145/2382577.2382579 · Cited by 791 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Utilizing protein structure graph embeddings to predict the pathogenicity of missense variants
Danner, M., Begemann, M., Elbracht, M., Kurth, I., & Krause, J. (2025) · NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/nargab/lqaf097 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
- Authors
- Bernett, J., Blumenthal, D. B., & List, M.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (DE)
- Corresponding author
- List, Markus
- Venue
- Briefings in Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-01-22
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- ISSN
- 1467-5463 (ISSN-L)
- 1477-4054
- PMC
- PMC10939362
- OpenAlex
- W4392500220
- Cited by
- 95
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 42 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 12.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Briefings in Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- mediaTUM – the media and publications repository of the Technical University Munich (Technical University Munich) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Nvidia
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (422216132)
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (031L0309A, 031L0305A)
- Universität Wien
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- 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 prediction, data leakage, sequence similarity, node degree, protein-protein interaction network, baseline model, protein sequence-based prediction
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning
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