Filtering and Interpreting Large-Scale Experimental Protein–Protein Interaction Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rarely acting in isolation, it is invariably the physical associations among proteins that define their biological activity, necessitating the study of the cellular meshwork of protein-protein interactions (PPI) before a full appreciation of gene function can be achieved. The past few years have seen a marked expansion in the both the sheer volume and number of organisms for which high-quality interaction data is available, with high-throughput interaction screening and detection techniques showing consistent improvement both in scale and sensitivity. Although techniques for large-scale PPI mapping are increasingly being applied to new organisms, including human, there is a corresponding need to rigorously evaluate, benchmark, and impartially filter the results. This chapter explores methods for PPI dataset evaluation, including a survey of previous techniques applied by landmark studies in the field and a discussion of promising new experimental approaches. We further outline practical suggestions and useful tools for interpreting newly generated PPI data. As the majority of large-scale experimental data has been generated for the budding yeast S. cerevisiae, most of the techniques and datasets described are from the perspective of this model unicellular eukaryote; however, extensions to other organisms including mammals are mentioned where possible.
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 | 0.019 | 0.061 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".