ArticleACS omega2026
Machine Learning Methods for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Based on Noncovalent Interactions.
Article in ACS omega, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Given the pivotal role of noncovalent interactions in protein-protein interactions (PPIs), exploring the hidden patterns underlying the interaction data has become essential for deciphering and evaluating PPIs. In the current study, different types of noncovalent interaction data were generated from 44848 pdb files collected from the RCSB-PDB database, based on which twenty-five machine learning algorithms were benchmarked using default parameters, with top performers selected for subsequent hyperparameter optimization. Then, optimized models underwent feature selection and were subsequently ensembled via stacking and voting classifiers before comprehensive performance evaluation on test data. Finally, 12 models were built to evaluate the relationship between PPIs and noncovalent interactions after optimization. Among them, ETsO achieved the best performance across all eight metrics (>0.9, only Specificity and MCC < 0.9), followed closely by the three stacking models (SM_et487, SM_se375 and SM_dt415) and ETsO_FS. The SHAP analysis was used for elucidating the contribution of noncovalent interactions in PPIs, which indicated that PPIs depend inherently on synergistic effects among multiple noncovalent interactions. Further feature analysis indicated a notable divergence in features using behaviors among the three models after FS, with varying frequencies of different interactions observed among the top 20 polynomial features. The current study provided new practical tools for PPI prediction and supplied valuable insights into the molecular determinants of protein recognition.
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.