Cited by 34Bioinformatics and Genomic NetworksMachine Learning in BioinformaticsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

RAPPPID: towards generalizable protein interaction prediction with AWD-LSTM twin networks

Open access
Szymborski, Joseph, Emad, Amin·2022·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: Computational methods for the prediction of protein–protein interactions (PPIs), while important tools for researchers, are plagued by challenges in generalizing to unseen proteins. Datasets used for modelling protein–protein predictions are particularly predisposed to information leakage and sampling biases. Results: In this study, we introduce RAPPPID, a method for the Regularized Automatic Prediction of Protein–Protein Interactions using Deep Learning. RAPPPID is a twin Averaged Weight-Dropped Long Short-Term memory network which employs multiple regularization methods during training time to learn generalized weights. Testing on stringent interaction datasets composed of proteins not seen during training, RAPPPID outperforms state-of-the-art methods. Further experiments show that RAPPPID’s performance holds regardless of the particular proteins in the testing set and its performance is higher for experimentally supported edges. This study serves to demonstrate that appropriate regularization is an important component of overcoming the challenges of creating models for PPI prediction that generalize to unseen proteins. Additionally, as part of this study, we provide datasets corresponding to several data splits of various strictness, in order to facilitate assessment of PPI reconstruction methods by others in the future. Availability and implementation: Code and datasets are freely available at https://github.com/jszym/rapppid and Zenodo.org. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 · 10.1093/bioinformatics/btac429

Cites

67 of 67 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

3 of the 70 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Szymborski, J., & Emad, A.
Affiliations
Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute (CA)
Corresponding author
Emad, Amin
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2022-06-30
Volume
38
Issue
16
Pages
3958-3967
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W4283716699
Cited by
34
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
2.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (RGPIN-2019-04460)
  • McGill Initiative in Computational Medicine
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
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
protein-protein interaction prediction, Siamese network, regularization, information leakage, sampling bias, deep learning
MeSH terms
Cell Communication, Proteins, Neural Networks, Computer

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