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 accessPublished 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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
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
Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3
Abramson, J., Adler, J., Dunger, J., Evans, R., Green, T., Pritzel, A., Ronneberger, O., Willmore, L., Ballard, A. J., Bambrick, J., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07487-w · Cited by 15,861 · cited 2×
“Even advanced structure predictors such as AlphaFold2 (Jumper et al. 2021), AlphaFold-Multimer (Evans et al. 2021), and AlphaFold3 (Abramson et al. 2024) frequently misplace binding partners, produce overlapping chains, or distort binding interfaces, especially for multichain assemblies with weak…”
Evolutionary-scale prediction of atomic level protein structure with a language model
Lin, Z., Akin, H., Rao, R., Hie, B., Zhu, Z., Lu, W., Smetanin, N., Verkuil, R., Kabeli, O., Shmueli, Y., et al. (2022) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.20.500902 · Cited by 5,990
Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2
Bryant, P., Pozzati, G., & Elofsson, A. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.09.15.460468 · Cited by 1,022
Jankauskaitė, J., Jiménez-García, B., Dapkūnas, J., Fernández-Recio, J., & Moal, I. H. (2019) · Bioinformatics · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bty635 · Cited by 389 · cited 1×
“0 data-set is dominated by mutations introduced on a fixed wild-type scaffold, with approximately three-quarters of entries involving a single amino acid substitution and most remaining cases consisting of double substitutions (Jankauskaite et al. 2019, Liu et al. 2024).”
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 28
- 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
- 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
- Chaudhury, 2010, PyRosetta: a script-based interface for implementing molecular modeling algorithms using rosetta, Bioinformatics, 26, 689, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq007 · DOI
- 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
- Csibra, 2022, Absolute protein quantification using fluorescence measurements with FPCountR, Nat Commun, 13, 6600, 10.1038/s41467-022-34232-6 · DOI
- Dauparas, 2022, Robust deep learning–based protein sequence design using ProteinMPNN, Science, 378, 49, 10.1126/science.add2187 · DOI · Paper page
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Honorato, 2021, Structural biology in the clouds: the WeNMR-EOSC ecosystem, Front Mol Biosci, 8, 729513, 10.3389/fmolb.2021.729513 · DOI
- Lam, 2024, Protein language models are performant in structure-free virtual screening, Brief Bioinform, 25, 10.1093/bib/bbae480 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- Malli, 2026, Advances in machine learning models for predicting enzyme kinetic parameters, J Chem Inf Model, 66, 42, 10.1021/acs.jcim.5c02428 · DOI
- Marquet, 2022, Embeddings from protein language models predict conservation and variant effects, Hum Genet, 141, 1629, 10.1007/s00439-021-02411-y · DOI
- 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
- Pacesa, 2025, One-shot design of functional protein binders with BindCraft, Nature, 646, 483, 10.1038/s41586-025-09429-6 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Singh, 2010, A comprehensive examination of the contributions to the binding entropy of protein-ligand complexes, Proteins, 78, 1724, 10.1002/prot.22689 · DOI
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Szklarczyk, 2024, The STRING database in 2025: protein networks with directionality of regulation, Nucleic Acids Res, 53
- 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
- Ullanat, 2026, Learning the language of protein–protein interactions, Nat Commun, 17, 1199, 10.1038/s41467-025-67971-3 · DOI
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2026-05-14
- Volume
- 42
- Issue
- 6
- ISSN
- 1367-4803 (ISSN-L)
- 1367-4811
- PMC
- PMC13262658
- OpenAlex
- W4414738646
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 5
- FWCI
- 0.00
- 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 (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