A regression framework incorporating quantitative and negative interaction data improves quantitative prediction of PDZ domain–peptide interaction from primary sequence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Predicting protein interactions involving peptide recognition domains is essential for understanding the many important biological processes they mediate. It is important to consider the binding strength of these interactions to help us construct more biologically relevant protein interaction networks that consider cellular context and competition between potential binders. RESULTS: We developed a novel regression framework that considers both positive (quantitative) and negative (qualitative) interaction data available for mouse PDZ domains to quantitatively predict interactions between PDZ domains, a large peptide recognition domain family, and their peptide ligands using primary sequence information. First, we show that it is possible to learn from existing quantitative and negative interaction data to infer the relative binding strength of interactions involving previously unseen PDZ domains and/or peptides given their primary sequence. Performance was measured using cross-validated hold out testing and testing with previously unseen PDZ domain-peptide interactions. Second, we find that incorporating negative data improves quantitative interaction prediction. Third, we show that sequence similarity is an important prediction performance determinant, which suggests that experimentally collecting additional quantitative interaction data for underrepresented PDZ domain subfamilies will improve prediction. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The Matlab code for our SemiSVR predictor and all data used here are available at http://baderlab.org/Data/PDZAffinity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".