Combining phylogeny and coevolution improves the inference of interaction partners among paralogous proteins
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Predicting protein-protein interactions from sequences is an important goal of computational biology. Various sources of information can be used to this end. Starting from the sequences of two interacting protein families, one can use phylogeny or residue coevolution to infer which paralogs are specific interaction partners within each species. We show that these two signals can be combined to improve the performance of the inference of interaction partners among paralogs. For this, we first align the sequence-similarity graphs of the two families through simulated annealing, yielding a robust partial pairing. We next use this partial pairing to seed a coevolution-based iterative pairing algorithm. This combined method improves performance over either separate method. The improvement obtained is striking in the difficult cases where the average number of paralogs per species is large or where the total number of sequences is modest.
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.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 13
- Authors
- Gandarilla-Pérez, C. A., Pinilla, S., Bitbol, A.-F., & Weigt, M.
- Affiliations
- Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
- SIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Bitbol, Anne-Florence
- Weigt, Martin
- Venue
- PLOS Computational Biology
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2023-03-30
- Volume
- 19
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- e1011010
- ISSN
- 1553-734X (ISSN-L)
- 1553-7358
- PMC
- PMC10089317
- OpenAlex
- W4361267150
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 1.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Update notices
- new_version (2023-04-11)
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS Computational Biology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
- HAL (submittedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Infoscience (Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Funders
- H2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions (734439 InferNet)
- European Research Council (851173)
- Institut de Biologie Paris Seine (Action Intitative)
- National Science Foundation (PHY-1607611)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction prediction, paralogous proteins, phylogeny, residue coevolution, simulated annealing, protein families
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Phylogeny, Protein Binding, 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