Chainsaw: protein domain segmentation with fully convolutional neural networks
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Motivation: Protein domains are fundamental units of protein structure and play a pivotal role in understanding folding, function, evolution, and design. The advent of accurate structure prediction techniques has resulted in an influx of new structural data, making the partitioning of these structures into domains essential for inferring evolutionary relationships and functional classification. Results: This article presents Chainsaw, a supervised learning approach to domain parsing that achieves accuracy that surpasses current state-of-the-art methods. Chainsaw uses a fully convolutional neural network which is trained to predict the probability that each pair of residues is in the same domain. Domain predictions are then derived from these pairwise predictions using an algorithm that searches for the most likely assignment of residues to domains given the set of pairwise co-membership probabilities. Chainsaw matches CATH domain annotations in 78% of protein domains versus 72% for the next closest method. When predicting on AlphaFold models, expert human evaluators were twice as likely to prefer Chainsaw’s predictions versus the next best method. Availability and implementation: github.com/JudeWells/Chainsaw.
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
Varadi, M., Anyango, S., Deshpande, M., Nair, S., Natassia, C., Yordanova, G., Yuan, D., Stroe, O., Wood, G., Laydon, A., et al. (2022) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkab1061 · Cited by 7,850 · see citing works
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.07.479398 · Cited by 2,598 · see citing works
Fast and accurate protein structure search with Foldseek
van Kempen, M., Kim, S. S., Tumescheit, C., Mirdita, M., Lee, J., Gilchrist, C. L. M., Söding, J., & Steinegger, M. (2024) · Nature Biotechnology · doi:10.1038/s41587-023-01773-0 · Cited by 2,596 · see citing works
ECOD: an evolutionary classification of protein domains
Cheng, H., Schaeffer, R. D., Liao, Y., Kinch, L. N., Pei, J., Shi, S., Kim, B.-H., & Grishin, N. V. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003926 · Cited by 426 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Structural protein domain databases such as CATH (Orengo et al. 1997), SCOP (Murzin et al. 1995), SCOPe (Chandonia et al. 2021), and ECOD (Cheng et al. 2014) are essential for advancing scientific understanding of the protein universe.”
Method
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Varadi, M., Bertoni, D., Magana, P., Paramval, U., Pidruchna, I., Radhakrishnan, M., Tsenkov, M., Nair, S., Mirdita, M., Yeo, J., et al. (2024) · Nucleic Acids Research · doi:10.1093/nar/gkad1011 · Cited by 2,052 · see citing works
From interaction networks to interfaces, scanning intrinsically disordered regions using AlphaFold2
Bret, H., Gao, J., Zea, D. J., Andreani, J., & Guerois, R. (2024) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-023-44288-7 · Cited by 103 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wells, J., Hawkins-Hooker, A., Bordin, N., Sillitoe, I., Paige, B., & Orengo, C.
- Affiliations
- University College London (GB)
- Centre for Artificial Intelligence, University College London , WC1E 6BT, United Kingdom
- Institute of Structural and Molecular Biology (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Orengo, Christine
- Venue
- Bioinformatics
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2024-05-01
- Volume
- 40
- Issue
- 5
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC11256964
- OpenAlex
- W4396730528
- Cited by
- 53
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 17 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 6.94
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Padua Research Archive (University of Padova) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- EPSRC (EP/S021566/1)
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
- Keywords
- protein structure annotation, fully convolutional network, AlphaFold models, protein structure prediction
- MeSH terms
- Protein Domains, Algorithms, Humans, Proteins, Software, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology, Databases, Protein
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