ArticlePLoS computational biology2019
Phylogenetic correlations can suffice to infer protein partners from sequences.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Investigating Statistical Conditions of Coevolutionary Signals that Enable Algorithmic Predictions of Protein Partners.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- DiffPaSS-high-performance differentiable pairing of protein sequences using soft scores.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Impact of phylogeny on the inference of functional sectors from protein sequence data.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Pairing interacting protein sequences using masked language modeling.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Enhancing coevolutionary signals in protein-protein interaction prediction through clade-wise alignment integration.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Pitfalls of machine learning models for protein-protein interaction networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Combining phylogeny and coevolution improves the inference of interaction partners among paralogous proteins.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Article
- Impact of phylogeny on structural contact inference from protein sequence data.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023Article
- Funneling modulatory peptide design with generative models: Discovery and characterization of disruptors of calcineurin protein-protein interactions.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- Correlations from structure and phylogeny combine constructively in the inference of protein partners from sequences.PLoS computational biology · 2022Article
- Information Theory in Molecular Evolution: From Models to Structures and Dynamics.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Trivial and nontrivial error sources account for misidentification of protein partners in mutual information approaches.Scientific reports · 2021Article
- Inter-protein residue covariation information unravels physically interacting protein dimers.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determining which proteins interact together is crucial to a systems-level understanding of the cell. Recently, algorithms based on Direct Coupling Analysis (DCA) pairwise maximum-entropy models have allowed to identify interaction partners among paralogous proteins from sequence data. This success of DCA at predicting protein-protein interactions could be mainly based on its known ability to identify pairs of residues that are in contact in the three-dimensional structure of protein complexes and that coevolve to remain physicochemically complementary. However, interacting proteins possess similar evolutionary histories. What is the role of purely phylogenetic correlations in the performance of DCA-based methods to infer interaction partners? To address this question, we employ controlled synthetic data that only involve phylogeny and no interactions or contacts. We find that DCA accurately identifies the pairs of synthetic sequences that share evolutionary history. While phylogenetic correlations confound the identification of contacting residues by DCA, they are thus useful to predict interacting partners among paralogs. We find that DCA performs as well as phylogenetic methods to this end, and slightly better than them with large and accurate training sets. Employing DCA or phylogenetic methods within an Iterative Pairing Algorithm (IPA) allows to predict pairs of evolutionary partners without a training set. We further demonstrate the ability of these various methods to correctly predict pairings among real paralogous proteins with genome proximity but no known direct physical interaction, illustrating the importance of phylogenetic correlations in natural data. However, for physically interacting and strongly coevolving proteins, DCA and mutual information outperform phylogenetic methods. We finally discuss how to distinguish physically interacting proteins from proteins that only share a common evolutionary history.
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.