Protein–protein interaction prediction with deep learning: A comprehensive review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most proteins perform their biological function by interacting with themselves or other molecules. Thus, one may obtain biological insights into protein functions, disease prevalence, and therapy development by identifying protein-protein interactions (PPI). However, finding the interacting and non-interacting protein pairs through experimental approaches is labour-intensive and time-consuming, owing to the variety of proteins. Hence, protein-protein interaction and protein-ligand binding problems have drawn attention in the fields of bioinformatics and computer-aided drug discovery. Deep learning methods paved the way for scientists to predict the 3-D structure of proteins from genomes, predict the functions and attributes of a protein, and modify and design new proteins to provide desired functions. This review focuses on recent deep learning methods applied to problems including predicting protein functions, protein-protein interaction and their sites, protein-ligand binding, and protein design.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it