MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138735135 · doi:10.1109/bibm.2010.5706528

Protein-protein interaction prediction using desolvation energies and interface properties

2010· article· en· W2138735135 on OpenAlexafffund
Luis Rueda, Sridip Banerjee, Md. Mominul Aziz, Mohammad Raza

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsDimensionality reductionCurse of dimensionalityComputer scienceObligateInterface (matter)Support vector machinePrincipal component analysisBiological systemPattern recognition (psychology)Protein–protein interactionArtificial intelligenceChemistryBiologyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An important aspect in understanding and classifying protein-protein interactions (PPI) is to analyze their interfaces in order to distinguish between transient and obligate complexes. We propose a classification approach to discriminate between these two types of complexes. Our approach has two important aspects. First, we have used desolvation energies - amino acid and atom type - of the residues present in the interface, which are the input features of the classifiers. Principal components of the data were found and then the classification is performed via linear dimensionality reduction (LDR) methods. Second, we have investigated various interface properties of these interactions. From the analysis of protein quaternary structures, physicochemical properties are treated as the input features of the classifiers. Various features are extracted from each complex, and the classification is performed via different linear dimensionality reduction (LDR) methods. The results on standard benchmarks of transient and obligate protein complexes show that (i) desolvation energies are better discriminants than solvent accessibility and conservation properties, among others, and (ii) the proposed approach outperforms previous solvent accessible area based approaches using support vector machines.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.228 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207