ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2026
The role of protein embeddings for protein-protein interaction prediction with graph neural networks.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Graph neural networks are a natural fit for protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction because they exploit the graph structure of interactomes, yet it remains unclear how much they benefit from protein-level representations and which sources of protein information matter most. We address this by surveying and organizing the field into a coherent taxonomy that describes three paradigms: network-level approaches (shallow and deep graph representation learning), protein-level approaches (sequence, structure, and function), and hybrid methods that combine both paradigms-providing a cohesive synthesis that highlights their respective strengths, complementarities, and tradeoffs. We developed a unified framework to systematically compare these paradigms that incorporates multiple representative methods and evaluates them on two widely used benchmarks: OGBl-ppa and HuRI. Our results indicate that hybrid methods have improved performance, with function-driven representations emerging as the most informative protein-level representations for PPI prediction. This work provides a taxonomical map of the field, a reproducible framework for evaluating representative methods across paradigms, and practical guidance for future PPI prediction efforts.
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.