ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2025
Deep learning models for unbiased sequence-based PPI prediction plateau at an accuracy of 0.65.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- ESpma: A method for assessing biological/non-biological interfaces using point-clouds-based structural features and protein language models.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2026Article
- Protein language models are accidental taxonomists.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- BindPred: a framework for predicting protein-protein binding affinity from language model embeddings.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Rapid Proteome-Wide Discovery of Protein-Protein Interactions With ppIRIS.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Graph attention with structural features improves the generalizability of identifying functional sequences at a protein interface.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Protein Language Models are Accidental Taxonomists.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
motivationAs most proteins interact with other proteins to perform their respective functions, methods to computationally predict these interactions have been developed. However, flawed evaluation schemes and data leakage in test sets have obscured the fact that sequence-based protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction is still an open problem. Recently, methods achieving better-than-random performance on leakage-reduced PPI data have been proposed.
resultsHere, we show that the use of ESM-2 protein embeddings explains this performance gain irrespective of model architecture. We compared the performance of models with varying complexity, per-protein, and per-token embeddings, as well as the influence of self- or cross-attention, where all models plateaued at an accuracy of 0.65. Moreover, we show that the tested sequence-based models cannot implicitly learn a contact map as an intermediate layer. These results imply that other input types, such as structure, might be necessary for producing reliable PPI predictions. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: All code for models and execution of the models is available at https://github.com/daisybio/PPI_prediction_study. Python version 3.8.18 and PyTorch version 2.1.1 were used for this study. The environment containing the versions of all other packages used can be found in the GitHub repository. The used data are available at https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.21591618.v3.
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.