A New Method for Predicting Protein Functions From Dynamic Weighted Interactome Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated annotation of protein function is challenging. As the number of sequenced genomes rapidly grows, the overwhelming majority of proteins can only be annotated computationally. Under new conditions or stimuli, not only the number and location of proteins would be changed, but also their interactions. This dynamic feature of protein interactions, however, was not considered in the existing function prediction algorithms. Taking the dynamic nature of protein interactions into consideration, we construct a dynamic weighted interactome network (DWIN) by integrating protein-protein interaction (PPI) network and time course gene expression data, as well as proteins' domain information and protein complex information. Then, we propose a new prediction approach that predicts protein functions from the constructed dynamic weighted interactome network. For an unknown protein, the proposed method visits dynamic networks at different time points and scores functions derived from all neighbors. Finally, the method selects top N functions from these ranked candidate functions to annotate the testing protein. Experiments on PPI datasets were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed approach in predicting unknown protein functions. The evaluation results demonstrated that the proposed method outperforms other competing methods.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".