How Perfect Can Protein Interactomes Be?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Any engineered device should certainly not contain nonfunctional components, for this would be a waste of energy and money. In contrast, evolutionary theory tells us that biological systems need not be optimized and may very well accumulate nonfunctional elements. Mutational and demographic processes contribute to the cluttering of eukaryotic genomes and transcriptional networks with "junk" DNA and spurious DNA binding sites. Here, we question whether such a notion should be applied to protein interactomes-that is, whether these protein interactomes are expected to contain a fraction of nonselected, nonfunctional protein-protein interactions (PPIs), which we term "noisy." We propose a simple relationship between the fraction of noisy interactions expected in a given organism and three parameters: (i) the number of mutations needed to create and destroy interactions, (ii) the size of the proteome, and (iii) the fitness cost of noisy interactions. All three parameters suggest that noisy PPIs are expected to exist. Their existence could help to explain why PPIs determined from large-scale studies often lack functional relationships between interacting proteins, why PPIs are poorly conserved across organisms, and why the PPI space appears to be immensely large. Finally, we propose experimental strategies to estimate the fraction of evolutionary noise in PPI networks.
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 | 0.006 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".