Sequence-Based Protein–Protein Interaction Prediction and Its Applications in Drug Discovery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aberrant protein-protein interactions (PPIs) underpin a plethora of human diseases, and disruption of these harmful interactions constitute a compelling treatment avenue. Advances in computational approaches to PPI prediction have closely followed progress in deep learning and natural language processing. In this review, we outline the state-of-the-art methods for sequence-based PPI prediction and explore their impact on target identification and drug discovery. We begin with an overview of commonly used training data sources and techniques used to curate these data to enhance the quality of the training set. Subsequently, we survey various PPI predictor types, including traditional similarity-based approaches, and deep learning-based approaches with a particular emphasis on transformer architecture. Finally, we provide examples of PPI prediction in system-level proteomics analyses, target identification, and designs of therapeutic peptides and antibodies. This review sheds light on sequence-based PPI prediction, a broadly applicable alternative to structure-based methods, from a unique perspective that emphasizes their roles in the drug discovery process and rigorous model assessment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".