ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2024
A comprehensive review of protein-centric predictors for biomolecular interactions: from proteins to nucleic acids and beyond.
Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. 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.
- Article
- DNAreader: accurate prediction of DNA-binding residues in structured and disordered proteins using transformers and contrastive learning.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- xBind: an integrated webserver for large language model-enabled cross-molecular protein binding site prediction.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Recent advances in multimodal foundation model-enabled peptide screening and optimization for smart biomaterials and functional tissue engineering.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Dual Cross-Attention Network for Hierarchical Feature Fusion in Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Comparative assessment of binding residue predictions in intrinsically disordered regions.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Proteins interact with diverse ligands to perform a large number of biological functions, such as gene expression and signal transduction. Accurate identification of these protein-ligand interactions is crucial to the understanding of molecular mechanisms and the development of new drugs. However, traditional biological experiments are time-consuming and expensive. With the development of high-throughput technologies, an increasing amount of protein data is available. In the past decades, many computational methods have been developed to predict protein-ligand interactions. Here, we review a comprehensive set of over 160 protein-ligand interaction predictors, which cover protein-protein, protein-nucleic acid, protein-peptide and protein-other ligands (nucleotide, heme, ion) interactions. We have carried out a comprehensive analysis of the above four types of predictors from several significant perspectives, including their inputs, feature profiles, models, availability, etc. The current methods primarily rely on protein sequences, especially utilizing evolutionary information. The significant improvement in predictions is attributed to deep learning methods. Additionally, sequence-based pretrained models and structure-based approaches are emerging as new trends.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.