Binary interactome models of inner- versus outer-complexome organisation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Hundreds of different protein complexes that perform important functions across all cellular processes, collectively comprising the “complexome” of an organism, have been identified 1 . However, less is known about the fraction of the interactome that exists outside the complexome, in the “outer-complexome”. To investigate features of “inner”- versus outer-complexome organisation in yeast, we generated a high-quality atlas of binary protein-protein interactions (PPIs), combining three previous maps 2–4 and a new reference all-by-all binary interactome map. A greater proportion of interactions in our map are in the outer-complexome, in comparison to those found by affinity purification followed by mass spectrometry 5–7 or in literature curated datasets 8–11 . In addition, recent advances in deep learning predictions of PPI structures 12 mirror the existing experimentally resolved structures in being largely focused on the inner complexome and missing most interactions in the outer-complexome. Our new PPI network suggests that the outer-complexome contains considerably more PPIs than the inner-complexome, and integration with functional similarity networks 13–15 reveals that interactions in the inner-complexome are highly detectable and correspond to pairs of proteins with high functional similarity, while proteins connected by more transient, harder-to-detect interactions in the outer-complexome, exhibit higher functional heterogeneity.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".