The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Prediction of protein interactions is essential for studying biomolecular mechanisms
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1002/pmic.202300219 · Paper page
Abstract
Structural characterization of protein interactions is essential for our ability to understand and modulate physiological processes. Computational approaches to modeling of protein complexes provide structural information that far exceeds capabilities of the existing experimental techniques. Protein structure prediction in general, and prediction of protein interactions in particular, has been revolutionized by the rapid progress in Deep Learning techniques. The work of Schweke et al. presents a community-wide study of an important problem of distinguishing physiological protein-protein complexes/interfaces (experimentally determined or modeled) from non-physiological ones. The authors designed and generated a large benchmark set of physiological and non-physiological homodimeric complexes, and evaluated a large set of scoring functions, as well as AlphaFold predictions, on their ability to discriminate the non-physiological interfaces. The problem of separating physiological interfaces from non-physiological ones is very difficult, largely due to the lack of a clear distinction between the two categories in a crowded environment inside a living cell. Still, the ability to identify key physiologically significant interfaces in the variety of possible configurations of a protein-protein complex is important. The study presents a major data resource and methodological development in this important direction for molecular and cellular biology.
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
Flagged first, then by citations
Metadata
- Authors
- Vakser, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Kansas (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vakser, Ilya
- ORCID
- Vakser, Ilya
- Venue
- PROTEOMICS
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2023-06-30
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 17
- Pages
- e2300219-e2300219
- ISSN
- 1615-9853 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4386439097
- Cited by
- 2
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 1
- FWCI
- 0.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- doi.org
- Locations
- PROTEOMICS (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction, benchmark dataset, scoring functions, AlphaFold, deep learning, protein structure prediction, protein complex modeling
- MeSH terms
- Proteomics
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