Using Coevolution to Predict Protein–Protein Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bioinformatic methods to predict protein-protein interactions (PPI) via coevolutionary analysis have -positioned themselves to compete alongside established in vitro methods, despite a lack of understanding for the underlying molecular mechanisms of the coevolutionary process. Investigating the alignment of coevolutionary predictions of PPI with experimental data can focus the effective scope of prediction and lead to better accuracies. A new rate-based coevolutionary method, MMM, preferentially finds obligate interacting proteins that form complexes, conforming to results from studies based on coimmunoprecipitation coupled with mass spectrometry. Using gold-standard databases as a benchmark for accuracy, MMM surpasses methods based on abundance ratios, suggesting that correlated evolutionary rates may yet be better than coexpression at predicting interacting proteins. At the level of protein domains, -coevolution is difficult to detect, even with MMM, except when considering small-scale experimental data involving proteins with multiple domains. Overall, these findings confirm that coevolutionary -methods can be confidently used in predicting PPI, either independently or as drivers of coimmunoprecipitation experiments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".