ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2025
Systematic evaluation of predictors for binding free energy changes upon mutations in protein complexes.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prediction of binding free energy changes ($\Delta \Delta G$) caused by mutations in protein complexes is crucial for understanding disease mechanisms and designing antibodies. Approximately 60% of pathogenic missense mutations lead to functional abnormalities by disrupting molecular interactions. However, although existing $\Delta \Delta G$ predictors exhibit strong performance in benchmarks, they suffer from inadequate generalization, a misalignment between evaluation metrics and practical needs, and poor adaptability to complex mutation scenarios. This study systematically assessed eight mainstream predictors, covering both physical energy function-based and machine learning-based methods, and constructed an independent evaluation set. This study employed multi-dimensional metrics, including regression accuracy and classification capability, while also analyzing the performance variations of predictors across different mutation types, stability categories, and microenvironments of protein mutation sites. The results indicate that >60% of predictors (5 out of 8) predictors exhibit a systematic bias toward overestimating mutational instability. In the three-class classification task, predictors demonstrate a limited ability to identify stabilizing mutations ($\Delta \Delta G< -0.5$ kcal/mol), with recall rates <0.1 for this class, and overall predictive efficacy depends on the protein local structure. In summary, this study reveals the limitations of current $\Delta \Delta G$ predictors in terms of generalization and adaptability to complex scenarios, thus providing a reference for the optimization and practical application of $\Delta \Delta G$ prediction methods. It suggests that future breakthroughs can be achieved by constructing balanced and standardized datasets alongside developing local-global fusion algorithms.
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.