Cited by 629Protein Structure and DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsEnzyme Structure and Function

Robust and accurate prediction of residue–residue interactions across protein interfaces using evolutionary information

Open access
Ovchinnikov, Sergey, Kamisetty, Hetunandan, Baker, David·2014·eLife

Abstract

Do the amino acid sequence identities of residues that make contact across protein interfaces covary during evolution? If so, such covariance could be used to predict contacts across interfaces and assemble models of biological complexes. We find that residue pairs identified using a pseudo-likelihood-based method to covary across protein–protein interfaces in the 50S ribosomal unit and 28 additional bacterial protein complexes with known structure are almost always in contact in the complex, provided that the number of aligned sequences is greater than the average length of the two proteins. We use this method to make subunit contact predictions for an additional 36 protein complexes with unknown structures, and present models based on these predictions for the tripartite ATP-independent periplasmic (TRAP) transporter, the tripartite efflux system, the pyruvate formate lyase-activating enzyme complex, and the methionine ABC transporter.

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 · 10.7554/elife.02030

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) method could not effectively distinguish a gold standard set of 768 yeast protein pairs known to interact from a much larger set of 768,000 primarily non-interacting pairs (area under the curve: 0.016).

    “In a first set of calculations, we found that even with the advantages of S. cerevisiae and improved ortholog identification, the statistical method (Direct Coupling Analysis, DCA) we had used in our previous coevolution-guided protein-protein interaction (PPI) screen in Prokaryotes (9) (the more accurate GREMLIN (11) method is too slow for this) could not effectively distinguish a “gold standard””

    From Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

  • Amino acid coevolution has been used to guide modeling of complexes for cases in which the structures of the partners are known, and to systematically identify pairs of interacting proteins in Prokaryotes with accuracy higher than experimental screens.

    “Such amino acid coevolution has been used to guide modeling of complexes for cases in which the structures of the partners are known (11,12), and to systematically identify pairs of interacting proteins in Prokaryotes with accuracy higher than experimental screens (9).”

    From Computed structures of core eukaryotic protein complexes (2021) · cites this paper as [11]

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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ovchinnikov, S., Kamisetty, H., & Baker, D.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Baker, David
Venue
eLife
Published
2014-05-01
Volume
3
Pages
e02030-e02030
ISSN
2050-084X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2107867854
Cited by
629
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 36 · 2023: 69 · 2022: 60 · 2021: 60 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 76 · 2018: 53 · 2017: 67 · 2016: 44 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 6
FWCI
22.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (1R01GM092802-04, National Institute of General Medical Studies, P41 GM103533)
  • Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) (N00024-10-D-6318/0024-02)
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
  • Physical Sciences › Materials Science › Materials Chemistry › Enzyme Structure and Function
Keywords
residue-residue interactions, protein-protein interfaces, contact prediction, coevolution, covariance, pseudo-likelihood, protein complexes, TRAP transporter, protein structure prediction
MeSH terms
Biological Evolution, Models, Molecular, Protein Binding, Protein Conformation, Proteins

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