INTREPPPID—an orthologue-informed quintuplet network for cross-species prediction of protein–protein interaction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overwhelming majority of protein-protein interaction (PPI) studies are conducted in a select few model organisms largely due to constraints in time and cost of the associated 'wet lab' experiments. In silico PPI inference methods are ideal tools to overcome these limitations, but often struggle with cross-species predictions. We present INTREPPPID, a method that incorporates orthology data using a new 'quintuplet' neural network, which is constructed with five parallel encoders with shared parameters. INTREPPPID incorporates both a PPI classification task and an orthologous locality task. The latter learns embeddings of orthologues that have small Euclidean distances between them and large distances between embeddings of all other proteins. INTREPPPID outperforms all other leading PPI inference methods tested on both the intraspecies and cross-species tasks using strict evaluation datasets. We show that INTREPPPID's orthologous locality loss increases performance because of the biological relevance of the orthologue data and not due to some other specious aspect of the architecture. Finally, we introduce PPI.bio and PPI Origami, a web server interface for INTREPPPID and a software tool for creating strict evaluation datasets, respectively. Together, these two initiatives aim to make both the use and development of PPI inference tools more accessible to the community.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".