ArticleProtein science : a publication of the Protein Society2026
ESpma: A method for assessing biological/non-biological interfaces using point-clouds-based structural features and protein language models.
Article in Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Distinguishing biological protein-protein interfaces from non-biological contacts remains an important task in structural biology, particularly as protein complex structures continue to accumulate. Recent advances in protein language models (pLMs) have expanded their use across diverse protein prediction tasks, including sequence-based protein-protein interaction prediction. Such approaches often pool representations over entire sequences, whereas structure-based methods commonly rely on more complex graph- or geometry-based integration. We therefore asked how much interface-relevant information could be extracted by simply pooling pLM embeddings over structurally defined local regions. Here, we revisited biological-versus-crystal interface classification as a structurally well-defined testbed for this question. We developed a framework that compares full-sequence pooling, interface-localized pooling of pLM embeddings, and multimodal integration of sequence-derived embeddings with point-cloud representations of protein surfaces. On two benchmark datasets, interface-localized pooling achieved stronger performance than full-sequence or non-interacting surface pooling across three pLM backbones. Despite its simplicity, the resulting representation performed within the range of established methods that rely on explicit evolutionary analysis or geometric modeling. Incorporating explicit geometric surface information changed performance slightly, without reaching statistical significance. Because the model is linear, the interface-level score decomposes exactly into per-residue contributions, which varied within amino-acid types. Together, our results indicate that the principal gain arises from localizing pLM embeddings to physically interacting residues, enabling a lightweight and accessible implementation for biological-versus-crystal interface classification. Code and scripts are available on GitHub: https://github.com/fukasawa-group/espma.
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.