Protein embeddings and deep learning predict binding residues for various ligand classes
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1038/s41598-021-03431-4
Abstract
One important aspect of protein function is the binding of proteins to ligands, including small molecules, metal ions, and macromolecules such as DNA or RNA. Despite decades of experimental progress many binding sites remain obscure. Here, we proposed bindEmbed21 , a method predicting whether a protein residue binds to metal ions, nucleic acids, or small molecules. The Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based method exclusively uses embeddings from the Transformer-based protein Language Model (pLM) ProtT5 as input. Using only single sequences without creating multiple sequence alignments (MSAs), bindEmbed21DL outperformed MSA-based predictions. Combination with homology-based inference increased performance to F1=48±3% (95% CI) and MCC=0.46±0.04 when merging all three ligand classes into one. All results were confirmed by three independent data sets. Focusing on very reliably predicted residues could complement experimental evidence: For the 25% most strongly predicted binding residues, at least 73% were correctly predicted even when ignoring the problem of missing experimental annotations. The new method bindEmbed21 is fast, simple, and broadly applicable - neither using structure nor MSAs. Thereby, it found binding residues in over 42% of all human proteins not otherwise implied in binding and predicted about 6% of all residues as binding to metal ions, nucleic acids, or small molecules.
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.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 62 · Cited by 120
- Authors
- Littmann, M., Heinzinger, M., Dallago, C., Weissenow, K., & Rost, B.
- Affiliations
- Technical University of Munich (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Littmann, Maria
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2021-09-05
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 23916-23916
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8668950
- OpenAlex
- W4225438928
- Cited by
- 120
- References
- 62
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 6.12
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Scientific Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- mediaTUM (Technical University of Munich) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Funders
- Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG-GZ: RO1320/4-1, RO1320/4‐1)
- Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (01IS17049, 031L0168)
- Technische Universität München
- 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
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- protein-ligand binding prediction, protein embeddings, ProtT5, metal ion binding, nucleic acid binding, small molecule binding, protein annotation
- MeSH terms
- Deep Learning, Binding Sites, Ligands, Metals, Nucleic Acids, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Software, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Molecular Docking Simulation
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