ArticleScientific reports2021
Trivial and nontrivial error sources account for misidentification of protein partners in mutual information approaches.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Investigating Statistical Conditions of Coevolutionary Signals that Enable Algorithmic Predictions of Protein Partners.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- Decoding allosteric landscapes: computational methodologies for enzyme modulation and drug discovery.RSC chemical biology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The problem of finding the correct set of partners for a given pair of interacting protein families based on multi-sequence alignments (MSAs) has received great attention over the years. Recently, the native contacts of two interacting proteins were shown to store the strongest mutual information (MI) signal to discriminate MSA concatenations with the largest fraction of correct pairings. Although that signal might be of practical relevance in the search for an effective heuristic to solve the problem, the number of MSA concatenations with near-native MI is large, imposing severe limitations. Here, a Genetic Algorithm that explores possible MSA concatenations according to a MI maximization criteria is shown to find degenerate solutions with two error sources, arising from mismatches among (i) similar and (ii) non-similar sequences. If mistakes made among similar sequences are disregarded, type-(i) solutions are found to resolve correct pairings at best true positive (TP) rates of 70%-far above the very same estimates in type-(ii) solutions. A machine learning classification algorithm helps to show further that differences between optimized solutions based on TP rates are not artificial and may have biological meaning associated with the three-dimensional distribution of the MI signal. Type-(i) solutions may therefore correspond to reliable results for predictive purposes, found here to be more likely obtained via MI maximization across protein systems having a minimum critical number of amino acid contacts on their interaction surfaces (N > 200).
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.