Cited by 0Machine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Structure and DynamicsComputational Drug Discovery Methods

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

BindPred: a framework for predicting protein–protein binding affinity from language model embeddings

Open access
Piao, Haixing, Boorla, Veda Sheersh, Santra, Somtirtha, Maranas, Costas D·2026·Bioinformatics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Motivation: Reliable predictions of protein–protein binding affinities are essential for molecular biology and therapeutic discovery. However, most computational methods rely on three-dimensional structural models, which are often unavailable for many complexes. Results: We introduce BindPred, a structure-agnostic input framework that predicts affinities directly from amino acid sequences by combining embeddings from large protein language models with gradient boosting trees. On the protein–protein binding (PPB)-Affinity benchmark, which comprises 11 919 diverse complexes, BindPred achieves a Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.86 in random split five-fold cross-validation. Ablation analysis indicates that evolutionary embeddings alone capture most of the predictive signals, while augmenting with physics-based energy terms from PyRosetta and BindCraft increases the correlation only by 0.01. A more stringent protein-level split that places entire protein families (wild-type and all mutants) exclusively in either training or testing sets, resulting in only a modest decline in performance, demonstrating robust generalization to novel interaction pairs. Because BindPred operates exclusively on sequence input, it enables rapid inference [approximately 3 million complexes per GPU (T4) hour], making proteome-scale screening computationally feasible. Availability: The pretrained model and inference pipeline are available in a Google Colab notebook: BindPred Colab notebook. The training dataset, code, and model weights are available on the hugging face: https://huggingface.co/hbp5181/BindPred.

Overview

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/btag309

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 5 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Alford, 2017, The Rosetta All-Atom energy function for macromolecular modeling and design, J Chem Theory Comput, 13, 3031, 10.1021/acs.jctc.7b00125 · DOI · Paper page
  2. Borrman, 2017, ATLAS: a database linking binding affinities with structures for wild-type and mutant TCR-pMHC complexes, Proteins, 85, 908, 10.1002/prot.25260 · DOI
  3. Chaudhury, 2010, PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using rosetta, Bioinformatics, 26, 689, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq007 · DOI
  4. Chaves, 2025, Estimating absolute protein–protein binding free energies by a super learner model, J Chem Inf Model, 65, 2602, 10.1021/acs.jcim.4c01641 · DOI
  5. Csibra, 2022, Absolute protein quantification using fluorescence measurements with FPCountR, Nat Commun, 13, 6600, 10.1038/s41467-022-34232-6 · DOI
  6. Dauparas, 2022, Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN, Science, 378, 49, 10.1126/science.add2187 · DOI · Paper page
  7. Elnaggar, 2021, ProtTrans: towards cracking the language of lifes code through Self-Supervised deep learning and high performance computing, IEEE Trans Pattern Anal Mach Intell, 44, 1
  8. Guest, 2021, An expanded benchmark for antibody-antigen docking and affinity prediction reveals insights into antibody recognition determinants, Structure, 29, 606, 10.1016/j.str.2021.01.005 · DOI
  9. Gurusinghe, 2025, ProBASS—a language model with sequence and structural features for predicting the effect of mutations on binding affinity, Bioinformatics, 41, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf270 · DOI
  10. Honorato, 2021, Structural biology in the clouds: the WeNMR-EOSC ecosystem, Front Mol Biosci, 8, 729513, 10.3389/fmolb.2021.729513 · DOI
  11. Lam, 2024, Protein language models are performant in structure-free virtual screening, Brief Bioinform, 25, 10.1093/bib/bbae480 · DOI
  12. Lebedenko, 2025, PCANN program for structure-based prediction of protein–protein binding affinity: comparison with other neural-network predictors, Proteins, 93, 1498, 10.1002/prot.26821 · DOI
  13. Liu, 2024, PPB-Affinity: protein–protein binding affinity dataset for AI-based protein drug discovery, Sci Data, 11, 1316, 10.1038/s41597-024-03997-4 · DOI
  14. Malli, 2026, Advances in machine learning models for predicting enzyme kinetic parameters, J Chem Inf Model, 66, 42, 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c02428 · DOI
  15. Marquet, 2022, Embeddings from protein language models predict conservation and variant effects, Hum Genet, 141, 1629, 10.1007/s00439-021-02411-y · DOI
  16. Morcos, 2011, Direct-coupling analysis of residue coevolution captures native contacts across many protein families, Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 108, 10.1073/pnas.1111471108 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Pacesa, 2025, One-shot design of functional protein binders with BindCraft, Nature, 646, 483, 10.1038/s41586-025-09429-6 · DOI
  18. Kříž, 2023, Free energy differences from molecular simulations: exact confidence intervals from transition counts, J Chem Theory Comput, 19, 2102, 10.1021/acs.jctc.2c01237 · DOI
  19. Reim, 2025, Deep learning models for unbiased sequence-based PPI prediction Plateau at an accuracy of 0.65, Bioinformatics, 41, i590, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btaf192 · DOI
  20. Sargsyan, 2024, Using protein language models for protein interaction hot spot prediction with limited data, BMC Bioinformatics, 25, 115, 10.1186/s12859-024-05737-2 · DOI
  21. Singh, 2010, A comprehensive examination of the contributions to the binding entropy of protein-ligand complexes, Proteins, 78, 1724, 10.1002/prot.22689 · DOI
  22. Sledzieski, 2021, D-SCRIPT translates genome to phenome with sequence-based, structure-aware, genome-scale predictions of protein–protein interactions, Cell Syst, 12, 969, 10.1016/j.cels.2021.08.010 · DOI
  23. Sparks, 2019, Use of surface plasmon resonance (SPR) to determine binding affinities and kinetic parameters between components important in fusion machinery, Methods Mol Biol, 1860, 199, 10.1007/978-1-4939-8760-3_12 · DOI
  24. Steinegger, 2017, MMseqs2 enables sensitive protein sequence searching for the analysis of massive data sets, Nat Biotechnol, 35, 1026, 10.1038/nbt.3988 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Szklarczyk, 2024, The STRING database in 2025: protein networks with directionality of regulation, Nucleic Acids Res, 53
  26. Thomas, 2025, PIPENN-EMB ensemble net and protein embeddings generalise protein interface prediction beyond homology, Sci Rep, 15, 4391, 10.1038/s41598-025-88445-y · DOI · Paper page
  27. Ullanat, 2026, Learning the language of protein–protein interactions, Nat Commun, 17, 1199, 10.1038/s41467-025-67971-3 · DOI
  28. Vreven, 2015, Updates to the integrated protein\u2013protein interaction benchmarks: docking benchmark version 5 and affinity benchmark version 2, Journal of Molecular Biology, 427, 3031, 10.1016/j.jmb.2015.07.016 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Piao, H., Boorla, V. S., Santra, S., & Maranas, C. D.
Affiliations
  • Pennsylvania State University (US)
  • Oak Ridge National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Piao, Haixing
Venue
Bioinformatics
Published
2026-05-14
Volume
42
Issue
6
ISSN
  • 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
  • 1367-4811
OpenAlex
W4414738646
Cited by
0
References
5
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Bioinformatics (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Center for Bioenergy Innovation
Topics
  • 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
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Drug Discovery › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
protein language models, sequence-based prediction, gradient boosting decision tree, protein-protein complex, protein mutants
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Predictive Learning Models, Prediction Algorithms, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Proteins, Software, 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