Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36570321›Full record

ReviewBiophysical reviews2022

Protein-protein interaction prediction methods: from docking-based to AI-based approaches.

Yuko Tsuchiya, Yu Yamamori, Kentaro Tomii

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biophysical reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Epitope Mapping with Sidewinder: An XL-MS and Structural Modeling Approach.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

3 authors.

Yuko TsuchiyaArtificial Intelligence Research Center (AIRC), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 2-4-7 Aomi, Koto-Ku, Tokyo, 135-0064 Japan.
Yu YamamoriArtificial Intelligence Research Center (AIRC), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 2-4-7 Aomi, Koto-Ku, Tokyo, 135-0064 Japan.
Kentaro TomiiArtificial Intelligence Research Center (AIRC), National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology (AIST), 2-4-7 Aomi, Koto-Ku, Tokyo, 135-0064 Japan.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-4768

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions (PPIs), such as protein-protein inhibitor, antibody-antigen complex, and supercomplexes play diverse and important roles in cells. Recent advances in structural analysis methods, including cryo-EM, for the determination of protein complex structures are remarkable. Nevertheless, much room remains for improvement and utilization of computational methods to predict PPIs because of the large number and great diversity of unresolved complex structures. This review introduces a wide array of computational methods, including our own, for estimating PPIs including antibody-antigen interactions, offering both historical and forward-looking perspectives.

Indexed as

AlphaFoldAntibody–antigen interactionDocking simulationEpitope predictionProfile–profile comparisonProtein–protein interaction

Identifiers

PMID36570321
PMCPMC9759050

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.