ArticleComputational structural bioinformatics : international workshop, CSBW 2024, Boston, MA, USA, November 16, 2024, proceedings. Computational Structural Bioinformatics Workshop (2024 : Boston, Mass.)2025
Automatic Explanation of Protein-Protein Binding Mechanism: A Preliminary Study.
Article in Computational structural bioinformatics : international workshop, CSBW 2024, Boston, MA, USA, November 16, 2024, proceedings. Computational Structural Bioinformatics Workshop (2024 : Boston, Mass.), 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Understanding the biochemical mechanisms that drive protein-protein interactions is a challenging task, traditionally requiring mutation studies and expert interpretation of protein structures. A method that can generate mechanistic explanations from the biochemical properties and contributions of interactions would enhance our ability to study protein-protein interactions. In this study, we present a novel approach to interpreting mechanistic insights from machine learning methods; we manually annotated a dataset of 1225 mutation experiments with mechanistic insights focused on electrostatic, hydrogen bonding, steric and hydrophobic interactions. To show a preliminary process for evaluating mechanism prediction models, we extracted SHAP features that are representative of protein binding mechanisms from a Gradient-Boosting Tree (GBT) model trained to predict binding affinity. We found that the SHAP values generally agreed with the annotated mechanisms from our dataset, especially when looking at electrostatic and steric features. We also found that hydrophobicity consistently played a dominant role and hydrogen bonds consistently played a secondary role, challenging conventional assumptions about the role of these interactions.
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.