ArticlePloS one2012
Protein-protein interaction site predictions with three-dimensional probability distributions of interacting atoms on protein surfaces.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine Learning in Enhancing Protein Binding Sites Predictions - What Has Changed Since Then?Combinatorial chemistry & high throughput screening · 2025Review
- Computational Analysis of Antibody Paratopes for Antibody Sequences in Antibody Libraries.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023Article
- Anticoagulant Oligonucleotide-Peptide Conjugates: Identification of Thrombin Aptamer Conjugates with Improved Characteristics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- A Deep Learning and XGBoost-Based Method for Predicting Protein-Protein Interaction Sites.Frontiers in genetics · 2021Article
- Small GTPases SAR1A and SAR1B regulate the trafficking of the cardiac sodium channel NaBiochimica et biophysica acta. Molecular basis of disease · 2018Article
- Enhancing interacting residue prediction with integrated contact matrix prediction in protein-protein interaction.EURASIP journal on bioinformatics & systems biology · 2016Article
- Prediction of Protein-Protein Interaction Sites with Machine-Learning-Based Data-Cleaning and Post-Filtering Procedures.The Journal of membrane biology · 2016Article
- Predicting Ligand Binding Sites on Protein Surfaces by 3-Dimensional Probability Density Distributions of Interacting Atoms.PloS one · 2016Article
- Algorithmic approaches to protein-protein interaction site prediction.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2015Article
- Origins of specificity and affinity in antibody-protein interactions.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2014Article
- Article
- HopDock: a probabilistic search algorithm for decoy sampling in protein-protein docking.Proteome science · 2013Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Protein-protein interactions are key to many biological processes. Computational methodologies devised to predict protein-protein interaction (PPI) sites on protein surfaces are important tools in providing insights into the biological functions of proteins and in developing therapeutics targeting the protein-protein interaction sites. One of the general features of PPI sites is that the core regions from the two interacting protein surfaces are complementary to each other, similar to the interior of proteins in packing density and in the physicochemical nature of the amino acid composition. In this work, we simulated the physicochemical complementarities by constructing three-dimensional probability density maps of non-covalent interacting atoms on the protein surfaces. The interacting probabilities were derived from the interior of known structures. Machine learning algorithms were applied to learn the characteristic patterns of the probability density maps specific to the PPI sites. The trained predictors for PPI sites were cross-validated with the training cases (consisting of 432 proteins) and were tested on an independent dataset (consisting of 142 proteins). The residue-based Matthews correlation coefficient for the independent test set was 0.423; the accuracy, precision, sensitivity, specificity were 0.753, 0.519, 0.677, and 0.779 respectively. The benchmark results indicate that the optimized machine learning models are among the best predictors in identifying PPI sites on protein surfaces. In particular, the PPI site prediction accuracy increases with increasing size of the PPI site and with increasing hydrophobicity in amino acid composition of the PPI interface; the core interface regions are more likely to be recognized with high prediction confidence. The results indicate that the physicochemical complementarity patterns on protein surfaces are important determinants in PPIs, and a substantial portion of the PPI sites can be predicted correctly with the physicochemical complementarity features based on the non-covalent interaction data derived from protein interiors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.