PreprintCited by 2Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

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 access
Vakser, Ilya·2023·PROTEOMICS

Preprint — 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.22541/au.168813185.58433396/v1

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

Metadata

Authors
Vakser, I.
Affiliations
University of Kansas (US)
Corresponding author
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
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