ContactPFP: Protein Function Prediction Using Predicted Contact Information
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational function prediction is one of the most important problems in bioinformatics as elucidating the function of genes is a central task in molecular biology and genomics. Most of the existing function prediction methods use protein sequences as the primary source of input information because the sequence is the most available information for query proteins. There are attempts to consider other attributes of query proteins. Among these attributes, the three-dimensional (3D) structure of proteins is known to be very useful in identifying the evolutionary relationship of proteins, from which functional similarity can be inferred. Here, we report a novel protein function prediction method, ContactPFP, which uses predicted residue-residue contact maps as input structural features of query proteins. Although 3D structure information is known to be useful, it has not been routinely used in function prediction because the 3D structure is not experimentally determined for many proteins. In ContactPFP, we overcome this limitation by using residue-residue contact prediction, which has become increasingly accurate due to rapid development in the protein structure prediction field. ContactPFP takes a query protein sequence as input and uses predicted residue-residue contact as a proxy for the 3D protein structure. To characterize how predicted contacts contribute to function prediction accuracy, we compared the performance of ContactPFP with several well-established sequence-based function prediction methods. The comparative study revealed the advantages and weaknesses of ContactPFP compared to contemporary sequence-based methods. There were many cases where it showed higher prediction accuracy. We examined factors that affected the accuracy of ContactPFP using several illustrative cases that highlight the strength of our method.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".