PreprintCited by 31Machine Learning in BioinformaticsProtein Structure and DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Pairing interacting protein sequences using masked language modeling

Open access
Lupo, Umberto, Sgarbossa, Damiano, Bitbol, Anne-Florence·2023·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Preprint — published as 10.1073/pnas.2311887121 · Paper page

Abstract

Predicting which proteins interact together from amino-acid sequences is an important task. We develop a method to pair interacting protein sequences which leverages the power of protein language models trained on multiple sequence alignments, such as MSA Transformer and the EvoFormer module of AlphaFold. We formulate the problem of pairing interacting partners among the paralogs of two protein families in a differentiable way. We introduce a method called DiffPALM that solves it by exploiting the ability of MSA Transformer to fill in masked amino acids in multiple sequence alignments using the surrounding context. MSA Transformer encodes coevolution between functionally or structurally coupled amino acids within protein chains. It also captures inter-chain coevolution, despite being trained on single-chain data. Relying on MSA Transformer without fine-tuning, DiffPALM outperforms existing coevolution-based pairing methods on difficult benchmarks of shallow multiple sequence alignments extracted from ubiquitous prokaryotic protein datasets. It also outperforms an alternative method based on a state-of-the-art protein language model trained on single sequences. Paired alignments of interacting protein sequences are a crucial ingredient of supervised deep learning methods to predict the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes. Starting from sequences paired by DiffPALM substantially improves the structure prediction of some eukaryotic protein complexes by AlphaFold-Multimer. It also achieves competitive performance with using orthology-based pairing. Significance statement: Deep learning has brought major advances to the analysis of biological sequences. Self-supervised models, based on approaches from natural language processing and trained on large ensembles of protein sequences, efficiently learn statistical dependence in this data. This includes coevolution patterns between structurally or functionally coupled amino acids, which allows them to capture structural contacts. We propose a method to pair interacting protein sequences which leverages the power of a protein language model trained on multiple sequence alignments. Our method performs well for small datasets that are challenging for existing methods. It can improve structure prediction of protein complexes by supervised methods, which remains more challenging than that of single-chain proteins.

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 · 10.1101/2023.08.14.553209

Cites

1 of 1 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

Research works printed but not linked: 87

  1. 10.1038/nbt.2831 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1126/science.abj8754 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 2022, Single-sequence protein structure prediction using a language model and deep learning, Nat Biotechnol, 40, 1617, 10.1038/s41587-022-01432-w · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1126/science.ade2574 · DOI · Paper page
  5. I. Humphreys , J. Pei , M. Baek , A. Krishnakumar , I. Anishchenko , S. Ovchinnikov , J. Zhang , T. J. Ness , S. Banjade , S. R. Bagde , V. G. Stancheva , X. H. Li , K. Liu , Z. Zheng , D. J. Barrero , U. Roy , J. Kuper , I. S. Ferńandez , B. Szakal , D. Branzei , J. Rizo , C. Kisker , E. C. Greene , S. Biggins , S. Keeney , E. A. Miller , J. C. Fromme , T. L. Hendrickson , Q. Cong , and D. Baker , “Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes,” Science, vol. 374, no. 6573, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  6. R. Evans , M. O’Neill , A. Pritzel , N. Antropova , A. Senior , T. Green , A. ̌ídek , R. Bates , S. Blackwell , J. Yim , O. Ronneberger , S. Bodenstein , M. Zielinski , A. Bridgland , A. Potapenko , A. Cowie , K. Tunyasuvunakool , R. Jain , E. Clancy , P. Kohli , J. Jumper , and D. Hassabis , “Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer,” bioRxiv, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  7. 10.1038/S41592-022-01488-1 · DOI · Paper page
  8. P. Bryant , G. Pozzati , and A. Elofsson , “Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2,” Nat Commun, vol. 13, no. 1, p. 1265, 2022. · DOI · Paper page
  9. H. Schweke , T. Levin , M. Pacesa , C. A. Goverde , P. Kumar , Y. Duhoo , L. J. Dornfeld , B. Dubreuil , S. Georgeon , S. Ovchinnikov , D. N. Woolfson , B. E. Correia , S. Dey , and E. D. Levy , “An atlas of protein homo-oligomerization across domains of life,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
  10. 10.1016/j.sbi.2023.102594 · DOI
  11. L. T. Alexander , J. Durairaj , A. Kryshtafovych , L. A. Abriata , Y. Bayo , G. Bhabha , C. Breyton , S. G. Caulton , J. Chen , S. Degroux , D. C. Ekiert , B. S. Erlandsen , P. L. Freddolino , D. Gilzer , C. Greening , J. M. Grimes , R. Grinter , M. Gurusaran , M. D. Hartmann , C. J. Hitchman , J. R. Keown , A. Kropp , P. Kursula , A. L. Lovering , B. Lemaitre , A. Lia , S. Liu , M. Logotheti , S. Lu , S. sson , M. D. Miller , G. Minasov , H. H. Niemann , F. Opazo , G. N. Phillips , O. R. Davies , S. Rommelaere , M. Rosas-Lemus , P. Roversi , K. Satchell , N. Smith , M. A. Wilson , K. L. Wu , X. Xia , H. Xiao , W. Zhang , Z. H. Zhou , K. Fidelis , M. Topf , J. Moult , and T. Schwede , “Protein target highlights in CASP15: Analysis of models by structure providers,” Proteins, pp. 1–29, 2023. · DOI
  12. 10.1073/pnas.0805923106 · DOI · Paper page
  13. 2016, Inferring interaction partners from protein sequences, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 113, 185
  14. 2016, Simultaneous identification of specifically interacting paralogs and interprotein contacts by direct coupling analysis, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A, 113, 186
  15. 10.1016/J.SBI.2017.10.014 · DOI · Paper page
  16. 10.1093/bib/bbac208 · DOI
  17. 2023, Improved the heterodimer protein complex prediction with protein language models, Briefings in Bioinformatics, 24, bbad221, 10.1093/bib/bbad221 · DOI
  18. 2013, The MIntAct project—IntAct as a common curation platform for 11 molecular interaction databases, Nucleic Acids Research, 42, D358
  19. 10.1016/j.cell.2016.05.003 · DOI
  20. 10.7554/eLife.02030 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1126/science.aaw6718 · DOI · Paper page
  22. A. G. Green , H. Elhabashy , K. P. Brock , R. Maddamsetti , O. Kohlbacher , and D. S. Marks , “Large-scale discovery of protein interactions at residue resolution using co-evolution calculated from genomic sequences,” Nat Commun, vol. 12, no. 1, p. 1396, 2021. · DOI · Paper page
  23. 10.1093/nar/gky420 · DOI
  24. 2021, Limits and potential of combined folding and docking, Bioinformatics, 38, 954
  25. 10.1016/S0022-2836(02)01038-0 · DOI
  26. 10.1016/S0022-2836(03)00114-1 · DOI
  27. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btg278 · DOI
  28. 10.1093/nar/gkl112 · DOI
  29. 10.1002/prot.20948 · DOI
  30. J. M. Izarzugaza , D. Juan , C. Pons , F. Pazos , and A. Valencia , “Enhancing the prediction of protein pairings between interacting families using orthology information,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 9, p. 35, 2008. · DOI
  31. 10.1101/gr.092452.109 · DOI
  32. S. Bradde , A. Braunstein , H. Mahmoudi , F. Tria , M. Weigt , and R. Zecchina , “Aligning graphs and finding substructures by a cavity approach,” EPL, vol. 89, no. 3, 2010. · DOI
  33. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bts109 · DOI
  34. M. El-Kebir , T. Marschall , I. Wohlers , M. Patterson , J. Heringa , A. Schonhuth , and G. W. Klau , “Mapping proteins in the presence of paralogs using units of coevolution,” BMC Bioinformatics, vol. 14 Suppl 15, p. S18, 2013. · DOI
  35. 2001, “Similarity of phylogenetic trees as indicator of protein–protein interaction,” Protein Engineering, Design and Selection, 14, 609, 10.1093/protein/14.9.609 · DOI
  36. 10.1073/pnas.0709671105 · DOI
  37. 10.1093/bioinformatics/bti1009 · DOI
  38. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq137 · DOI
  39. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv102 · DOI
  40. 1995, A method to predict functional residues in proteins, Nat Struct Mol Biol, 2, 171, 10.1038/nsb0295-171 · DOI
  41. 1999, Correlated mutations in models of protein sequences: phylogenetic and structural effects, in Statistics in molecular biology and genetics - IMS Lecture Notes - Monograph Series, 33, 236
  42. 10.1073/pnas.1111471108 · DOI · Paper page
  43. 10.1371/journal.pone.0016163 · DOI
  44. 10.1073/pnas.1323734111 · DOI
  45. L. Burger and E. van Nimwegen , “Accurate prediction of protein-protein interactions from sequence alignments using a Bayesian method,” Mol. Syst. Biol., vol. 4, p. 165, 2008. · DOI
  46. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1006401 · DOI
  47. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1007179 · DOI
  48. 2022, Correlations from structure and phylogeny combine constructively in the inference of protein partners from sequences, PLoS Comput. Biol, 18, e1010147, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1010147 · DOI
  49. 2023, Combining phylogeny and coevolution improves the inference of interaction partners among paralogous proteins, PLoS Comput. Biol, 19, e1011010, 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011010 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 2021, “MSA Transformer,”, Proceedings of the 38th International Conference on Machine Learning, 139, 8844
  51. U. Lupo , D. Sgarbossa , and A.-F. Bitbol , “Protein language models trained on multiple sequence alignments learn phylogenetic relationships,” Nat Commun, vol. 13, no. 6298, 2022. · DOI · Paper page
  52. 10.7554/eLife.79854 · DOI
  53. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btab761 · DOI · Paper page
  54. 10.1146/annurev.genet.41.042007.170548 · DOI
  55. 10.1186/1471-2164-10-315 · DOI
  56. 10.1093/nar/gkq1023 · DOI
  57. 10.1038/47056 · DOI
  58. 10.1093/NAR/GKAC1000 · DOI · Paper page
  59. 2022, “InterPro in 2022,”, Nucleic Acids Research, 51, D418
  60. 10.1093/nar/gki775 · DOI
  61. 10.1371/journal.pone.0162755 · DOI
  62. P. Bryant and F. Nóe, “Improved protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-multimer by denoising the MSA profile,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
  63. J. Liu , Z. Guo , T. Wu , R. S. Roy , F. Quadir , C. Chen , and J. Cheng , “Enhancing AlphaFold-Multimer-based protein complex structure prediction with MULTICOM in CASP15,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI
  64. B. Wallner , “Improved multimer prediction using massive sampling with AlphaFold in CASP15,” Proteins, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
  65. U. Ghani , I. Desta , A. Jindal , O. Khan , G. Jones , N. Hashemi , S. Kotelnikov , D. Padhorny , S. Vajda , and D. Kozakov , “Improved docking of protein models by a combination of Alphafold2 and ClusPro,” bioRxiv, 2022. · DOI · Paper page
  66. K. Olechnovič , L. Valaňcauskas , J. Dapkunas , and Č. Venclovas , “Prediction of protein assemblies by structure sampling followed by interface-focused scoring,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
  67. 2022, “FlashAttention: Fast and memory-efficient exact attention with IO-awareness,”, Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 344
  68. A. Hawkins-Hooker , D. T. Jones , and B. Paige , “Using domain-domain interactions to probe the limitations of MSA pairing strategies,” in Machine Learning for Structural Biology Workshop , NeurIPS, 2022. [Online]. Available: https://www.mlsb.io/papers2022/UsingdomaindomaininteractionstoprobethelimitationsofMSApairingstrategies.pdf
  69. 2022, Exploring evolution-aware & -free protein language models as protein function predictors, in Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 35, 873
  70. 2023, Generating interacting protein sequences using domain-to-domain translation, Bioinformatics, 39, btad401, 10.1093/bioinformatics/btad401 · DOI
  71. 2020, Deciphering interaction fingerprints from protein molecular surfaces using geometric deep learning, Nat Methods, 17, 184, 10.1038/s41592-019-0666-6 · DOI
  72. 2022, ScanNet: an interpretable geometric deep learning model for structure-based protein binding site prediction, Nat Methods, 19, 730, 10.1038/s41592-022-01490-7 · DOI · Paper page
  73. L. F. Krapp , L. A. Abriata , F. Cortés Rodriguez, and M. Dal Peraro , “PeSTo: parameter-free geometric deep learning for accurate prediction of protein binding interfaces,” Nat Commun, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 2175, 2023. · DOI
  74. M. N. Pun , A. Ivanov , Q. Bellamy , Z. Montague , C. LaMont , P. Bradley , J. Otwinowski , and A. Nourmohammad , “Learning the shape of protein micro-environments with a holographic convolutional neural network,” bioRxiv, 2022. · DOI
  75. F. Wu , L. Wu , D. Radev , J. Xu , and S. Z. Li , “Integration of pre-trained protein language models into geometric deep learning networks,” Commun Biol, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 876, 2023. · DOI
  76. Y. Si and C. Yan , “Protein language model embedded geometric graphs power inter-protein contact prediction,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI · Paper page
  77. J. Su , C. Han , Y. Zhou , J. Shan , X. Zhou , and F. Yuan , “SaProt: Protein language modeling with structure-aware vocabulary,” bioRxiv, 2023. · DOI
  78. G. E. Mena , D. Belanger , S. Linderman , and J. Snoek , “Learning latent permutations with Gumbel-Sinkhorn networks,” 6th International Conference on Learning Representations, ICLR 2018 - Conference Track Proceedings, pp. 1–22, 2018. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=Byt3oJ-0W
  79. M. D. Zeiler , “ADADELTA: an adaptive learning rate method,” arXiv, 2012.
  80. 10.1002/nav.3800020109 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 10.1186/1471-2105-11-1 · DOI
  82. 10.1038/nbt.3988 · DOI · Paper page
  83. J. Devlin , M.-W. Chang , K. Lee , and K. Toutanova , “BERT: Pre-training of deep bidirectional transformers for language understanding,” in Proceedings of the 2019 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies, Volume 1 (Long and Short Papers). Minneapolis, Minnesota: Association for Computational Linguistics, 2019, pp. 4171–4186.
  84. A. Wang and K. Cho , “BERT has a mouth, and it must speak: BERT as a Markov random field language model,” arXiv, 2019.
  85. K. Goyal , C. Dyer , and T. Berg-Kirkpatrick , “Exposing the implicit energy networks behind masked language models via Metropolis–Hastings,” arXiv, 2021.
  86. R. Rao , J. Meier , T. Sercu , S. Ovchinnikov , and A. Rives , “Transformer protein language models are unsupervised structure learners,” in International Conference on Learning Representations, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://openreview.net/forum?id=fylclEqgvgd · DOI · Paper page
  87. 10.1073/pnas.2017228118 · DOI · Paper page

Metadata

Authors
Lupo, U., Sgarbossa, D., & Bitbol, A.-F.
Affiliations
SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
Corresponding author
  • Lupo, Umberto
  • Sgarbossa, Damiano
  • Bitbol, Anne-Florence
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
openRxiv
Published
2023-08-14
Volume
121
Issue
27
Pages
e2311887121-e2311887121
ISSN
0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4399940408
Cited by
31
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 7
FWCI
4.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
Funders
  • DeepMind
  • European Commission (851173, HORIZON2020)
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 › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
protein-protein interaction prediction, masked language modeling, multiple sequence alignment, coevolution, paralogs, protein language models, protein complex structure prediction, AlphaFold-Multimer
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Amino Acid Sequence, Proteins, Sequence Alignment, Computational Biology, Sequence Analysis, Protein, 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