Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22194998›Full record

ArticlePloS one2011

Partner-aware prediction of interacting residues in protein-protein complexes from sequence data.

Shandar Ahmad, Kenji Mizuguchi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Challenges of Protein-Protein Docking of the Membrane Proteins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Residue-Residue Interaction Prediction via Stacked Meta-Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shandar AhmadNational Institute of Biomedical Innovation, Osaka, Japan. shandar@nibio.go.jp
Kenji Mizuguchi

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational prediction of residues that participate in protein-protein interactions is a difficult task, and state of the art methods have shown only limited success in this arena. One possible problem with these methods is that they try to predict interacting residues without incorporating information about the partner protein, although it is unclear how much partner information could enhance prediction performance. To address this issue, the two following comparisons are of crucial significance: (a) comparison between the predictability of inter-protein residue pairs, i.e., predicting exactly which residue pairs interact with each other given two protein sequences; this can be achieved by either combining conventional single-protein predictions or making predictions using a new model trained directly on the residue pairs, and the performance of these two approaches may be compared: (b) comparison between the predictability of the interacting residues in a single protein (irrespective of the partner residue or protein) from conventional methods and predictions converted from the pair-wise trained model. Using these two streams of training and validation procedures and employing similar two-stage neural networks, we showed that the models trained on pair-wise contacts outperformed the partner-unaware models in predicting both interacting pairs and interacting single-protein residues. Prediction performance decreased with the size of the conformational change upon complex formation; this trend is similar to docking, even though no structural information was used in our prediction. An example application that predicts two partner-specific interfaces of a protein was shown to be effective, highlighting the potential of the proposed approach. Finally, a preliminary attempt was made to score docking decoy poses using prediction of interacting residue pairs; this analysis produced an encouraging result.

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinSequence Analysis, ProteinAcetylcholinesteraseAmino AcidsAmino Acid SequenceBinding SitesElapid VenomsInternetModels, MolecularMolecular Sequence DataMultiprotein ComplexesProtein BindingProtein ConformationProteinsProtein SubunitsAcetylcholinesteraseAmino AcidsElapid VenomsfasciculinMultiprotein ComplexesProteinsProtein Subunits

Identifiers

PMID22194998
PMCPMC3237601

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.