Exploring How Workflow Variations in Denaturation-Based Assays Impact Global Protein–Protein Interaction Predictions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein denaturation-based assays, such as thermal proximity coaggregation (TPCA) and ion-based proteome-integrated solubility alteration (I-PISA), are powerful tools for characterizing global protein-protein interaction (PPI) networks. These workflows utilize different denaturation methods to probe PPIs, i.e., thermal- or ion-based. How denaturation differences influence PPI network mapping remained to be better understood. Here, we provide an experimental and computational characterization of the effect of the denaturation-based PPI assay on the observed PPI networks. We establish the value of both soluble and insoluble fractions in PPI prediction, determine the ability to minimize sample amount requirement, and assess different relative quantification methods during virus infection. Generating paired TPCA and I-PISA datasets, we define both overlapping sets of proteins and distinct PPI networks specifically captured by these methods. Assessing protein physical properties and subcellar localizations, we show that size, structural complexity, hydrophobicity, and localization influence PPI detection in a workflow-specific manner. We show that the insoluble fractions expand the detectable PPI landscape, underscoring their value in these workflows. Focusing on selected PPI networks (cytoskeletal and DNA repair), we observe the detection of distinct functional populations. Using influenza A infection as a model for cellular perturbation, we demonstrate that the integration of PPI predictions from soluble and insoluble workflows enhances the ability to build biologically informative and interconnected networks. Examining the effects of reducing starting material for TPCA assays, we find that PPI prediction quality remains robust when using a single well of a 96-well plate, a ∼500× reduction in sample input from usual workflows. Introducing simple workflow modifications, we show that label-free data-independent acquisition (DIA) TPCA yields performance comparable to the traditional tandem mass tag (TMT) data-dependent acquisition (DDA) TPCA workflow. This work provides insights into denaturation-based assays, highlights the value of insoluble fractions, and offers practical improvements for enhancing global PPI network mapping.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".