Cited by 23Bacteriophages and microbial interactionsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

PHIStruct: improving phage–host interaction prediction at low sequence similarity settings using structure-aware protein embeddings

Open access
Gonzales, Mark Edward M, Ureta, Jennifer C, Shrestha, Anish M S·2024·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: Recent computational approaches for predicting phage–host interaction have explored the use of sequence-only protein language models to produce embeddings of phage proteins without manual feature engineering. However, these embeddings do not directly capture protein structure information and structure-informed signals related to host specificity. Results: We present PHIStruct, a multilayer perceptron that takes in structure-aware embeddings of receptor-binding proteins, generated via the structure-aware protein language model SaProt, and then predicts the host from among the ESKAPEE genera. Compared against recent tools, PHIStruct exhibits the best balance of precision and recall, with the highest and most stable F1 score across a wide range of confidence thresholds and sequence similarity settings. The margin in performance is most pronounced when the sequence similarity between the training and test sets drops below 40%, wherein, at a relatively high-confidence threshold of above 50%, PHIStruct presents a 7%–9% increase in class-averaged F1 over machine learning tools that do not directly incorporate structure information, as well as a 5%–6% increase over BLASTp. Availability and implementation: The data and source code for our experiments and analyses are available at https://github.com/bioinfodlsu/PHIStruct.

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/btaf016

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
Gonzales, M. E. M., Ureta, J. C., & Shrestha, A. M. S.
Affiliations
  • De La Salle University (PH)
  • Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research (AU)
Corresponding author
Shrestha, Anish M S
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2024-12-26
Volume
41
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W4406308609
Cited by
23
References
11
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 6
FWCI
6.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Department of Science and Technology Philippine Council for Health Research and Development
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Bacteriophages and microbial interactions
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
receptor binding protein, host specificity, low sequence similarity, phage resistance genes, protein structure, multilayer perceptron
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Bacteriophages, Software, Viral Proteins, Computational Biology

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