Human protein-protein interaction prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the scientific literature and large public databases there are currently only ~39000 human protein-protein interactions that have been experimentally confirmed out of a potential 330,000,000 (assuming 1 protein per gene). To bridge the gap, computational methods are required to guide further experimental endeavours. The PIPs framework [ 1 ] uses a naïve Bayesian method that combines the predictive capabilities of numerous features to calculate the likelihood of interaction between two proteins. Features considered by the predictor include co-expression, orthology, domain co-occurrence, post translational modification and a new feature analysing semantic similarity of Gene Ontology terms. The predictor now includes two modules that make predictions based on the topology of the predicted protein-protein interaction network. We predict 318800 interaction predictions of which 310732 (96.3%) are not present within other publically available databases. Several of the predictions have been experimentally validated by external groups. The PIPs website ( http://www.compbio.dundee.ac.uk/pips ) [ 2 ] is an easy to use system to explore the predictions that have been made. Searches can be initiated by querying with a protein identifier (IPI, RefSeq or UniProt) or via a keyword search. All predicted protein-protein interactions are returned ranked by their likelihood of interaction. The website allows the user to analyse the evidence used to calculate the likelihood of interaction and provides links through to external databases and publications to retrieve the source data. The set of predictions that have been made in this work increase the coverage of the human interactome and help guide future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".