Network-based prediction of protein interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As biological function emerges through interactions between a cell’s molecular constituents, understanding cellular mechanisms requires us to catalogue all physical interactions between proteins [1–4]. Despite spectacular advances in high-throughput mapping, the number of missing human protein-protein interactions (PPIs) continues to exceed the experimentally documented interactions [5, 6]. Computational tools that exploit structural, sequence or network topology information are increasingly used to fill in the gap, using the patterns of the already known interactome to predict undetected, yet biologically relevant interactions [7–9]. Such network-based link prediction tools rely on the Triadic Closure Principle (TCP) [10–12], stating that two proteins likely interact if they share multiple interaction partners. TCP is rooted in social network analysis, namely the observation that the more common friends two individuals have, the more likely that they know each other [13, 14]. Here, we offer direct empirical evidence across multiple datasets and organisms that, despite its dominant use in biological link prediction, TCP is not valid for most protein pairs. We show that this failure is fundamental - TCP violates both structural constraints and evolutionary processes. This understanding allows us to propose a link prediction principle, consistent with both structural and evo-lutionary arguments, that predicts yet uncovered protein interactions based on paths of length three (L3). A systematic computational cross-validation shows that the L3 principle significantly outperforms existing link prediction methods. To experimentally test the L3 predictions, we perform both large-scale high-throughput and pairwise tests, finding that the predicted links test positively at the same rate as previously known interactions, suggesting that most (if not all) predicted interactions are real. Combining L3 predictions with experimen-tal tests provided new interaction partners of FAM161A, a protein linked to retinitis pigmentosa, offering novel insights into the molecular mechanisms that lead to the disease. Because L3 is rooted in a fundamental biological principle, we expect it to have a broad applicability, enabling us to better understand the emergence of biological function under both healthy and pathological conditions. Summary We unveil a fundamental organizing principle of biological networks and demonstrate its predictive power for uncovering novel protein interactions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".