Codep: Maximizing co‐evolutionary interdependencies to discover interacting proteins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approaches for the determination of interacting partners from different protein families (such as ligands and their receptors) have made use of the property that interacting proteins follow similar patterns and relative rates of evolution. Interacting protein partners can then be predicted from the similarity of their phylogenetic trees or evolutionary distances matrices. We present a novel method called Codep, for the determination of interacting protein partners by maximizing co-evolutionary signals. The order of sequences in the multiple sequence alignments from two protein families is determined in such a manner as to maximize the similarity of substitution patterns at amino acid sites in the two alignments and, thus, phylogenetic congruency. This is achieved by maximizing the total number of interdependencies of amino acids sites between the alignments. Once ordered, the corresponding sequences in the two alignments indicate the predicted interacting partners. We demonstrate the efficacy of this approach with computer simulations and in analyses of several protein families. A program implementing our method, Codep, is freely available to academic users from our website: http://www.uhnresearch.ca/labs/tillier/.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".