Specificity of broad protein interaction surfaces for proteins with multiple binding partners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Analysis of protein-protein interaction networks has revealed the presence of proteins with multiple interaction ligand proteins, such as hub proteins. For such proteins, multiple ligands would be predicted as interacting partners when predicting all-to-all protein-protein interactions (PPIs). In this work, to obtain a better understanding of PPI mechanisms, we focused on protein interaction surfaces, which differ between protein pairs. We then performed rigid-body docking to obtain information of interfaces of a set of decoy structures, which include many possible interaction surfaces between a certain protein pair. Then, we investigated the specificity of sets of decoy interactions between true binding partners in each case of alpha-chymotrypsin, actin, and cyclin-dependent kinase 2 as test proteins having multiple true binding partners. To observe differences in interaction surfaces of docking decoys, we introduced broad interaction profiles (BIPs), generated by assembling interaction profiles of decoys for each protein pair. After cluster analysis, the specificity of BIPs of true binding partners was observed for each receptor. We used two types of BIPs: those involved in amino acid sequences (BIP-seqs) and those involved in the compositions of interacting amino acid residue pairs (BIP-AAs). The specificity of a BIP was defined as the number of group members including all true binding partners. We found that BIP-AA cases were more specific than BIP-seq cases. These results indicated that the composition of interacting amino acid residue pairs was sufficient for determining the properties of protein interaction surfaces.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".