Protein–Protein Interaction Prediction for Targeted Protein Degradation
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
Protein–protein interactions (PPIs) play a fundamental role in various biological functions; thus, detecting PPI sites is essential for understanding diseases and developing new drugs. PPI prediction is of particular relevance for the development of drugs employing targeted protein degradation, as their efficacy relies on the formation of a stable ternary complex involving two proteins. However, experimental methods to detect PPI sites are both costly and time-intensive. In recent years, machine learning-based methods have been developed as screening tools. While they are computationally more efficient than traditional docking methods and thus allow rapid execution, these tools have so far primarily been based on sequence information, and they are therefore limited in their ability to address spatial requirements. In addition, they have to date not been applied to targeted protein degradation. Here, we present a new deep learning architecture based on the concept of graph representation learning that can predict interaction sites and interactions of proteins based on their surface representations. We demonstrate that our model reaches state-of-the-art performance using AUROC scores on the established MaSIF dataset. We furthermore introduce a new dataset with more diverse protein interactions and show that our model generalizes well to this new data. These generalization capabilities allow our model to predict the PPIs relevant for targeted protein degradation, which we show by demonstrating the high accuracy of our model for PPI prediction on the available ternary complex data. Our results suggest that PPI prediction models can be a valuable tool for screening protein pairs while developing new drugs for targeted protein degradation.
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.
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 · see citing works
Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer
Evans, R., O’Neill, M., Pritzel, A., Antropova, N., Senior, A., Green, T., Žídek, A., Bates, R., Blackwell, S., Yim, J., et al. (2021) · doi:10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 · Cited by 3,808 · see citing works
PRosettaC: Rosetta Based Modeling of PROTAC Mediated Ternary Complexes
Zaidman, D., Prilusky, J., & London, N. (2020) · Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling · doi:10.1021/acs.jcim.0c00589 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
Targeted protein acetylation in cells using heterobifunctional molecules
Wang, W. W., Chen, L.-Y., Wozniak, J. M., Jadhav, A. M., Anderson, H., Malone, T. E., & Parker, C. G. (2021) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.1c07850 · Cited by 114 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Advancing Targeted Protein Degradation via Multiomics Profiling and Artificial Intelligence
Duran-Frigola, M., Cigler, M., & Winter, G. E. (2023) · Journal of the American Chemical Society · doi:10.1021/jacs.2c11098 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
- Authors
- Orasch, O., Weber, N., Müller, M., Amanzadi, A., Gasbarri, C., & Trummer, C.
- Affiliations
- Celeris Therapeutics GmbH, Salzamtsgasse 7, 8010 Graz, Austria
- Corresponding author
- Trummer, Christopher
- Venue
- International Journal of Molecular Sciences
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2022-06-24
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 7033
- ISSN
- 1422-0067 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC9266413
- OpenAlex
- W4283523554
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6
- FWCI
- 1.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Molecular Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Degradation and Inhibitors
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction prediction, targeted protein degradation, ternary complex, graph representation learning, deep learning, drug discovery, interaction site prediction
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Proteins, Computational Biology, Protein Interaction Mapping, Proteolysis
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