Tobias Hamp1, Burkhard Rost1. 1. Department of Informatics, Bioinformatics and Computational Biology I12, Technische Universität München, 85748 Garching/Munich, Germany.
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Machine learning may be the most popular computational tool in molecular biology. Providing sustained performance estimates is challenging. The standard cross-validation protocols usually fail in biology. Park and Marcotte found that even refined protocols fail for protein-protein interactions (PPIs). RESULTS: Here, we sketch additional problems for the prediction of PPIs from sequence alone. First, it not only matters whether proteins A or B of a target interaction A-B are similar to proteins of training interactions (positives), but also whether A or B are similar to proteins of non-interactions (negatives). Second, training on multiple interaction partners per protein did not improve performance for new proteins (not used to train). In contrary, a strictly non-redundant training that ignored good data slightly improved the prediction of difficult cases. Third, which prediction method appears to be best crucially depends on the sequence similarity between the test and the training set, how many true interactions should be found and the expected ratio of negatives to positives. The correct assessment of performance is the most complicated task in the development of prediction methods. Our analyses suggest that PPIs square the challenge for this task.
MOTIVATION: Machine learning may be the most popular computational tool in molecular biology. Providing sustained performance estimates is challenging. The standard cross-validation protocols usually fail in biology. Park and Marcotte found that even refined protocols fail for protein-protein interactions (PPIs). RESULTS: Here, we sketch additional problems for the prediction of PPIs from sequence alone. First, it not only matters whether proteins A or B of a target interaction A-B are similar to proteins of training interactions (positives), but also whether A or B are similar to proteins of non-interactions (negatives). Second, training on multiple interaction partners per protein did not improve performance for new proteins (not used to train). In contrary, a strictly non-redundant training that ignored good data slightly improved the prediction of difficult cases. Third, which prediction method appears to be best crucially depends on the sequence similarity between the test and the training set, how many true interactions should be found and the expected ratio of negatives to positives. The correct assessment of performance is the most complicated task in the development of prediction methods. Our analyses suggest that PPIs square the challenge for this task.
Authors: Tamar Schlick; Stephanie Portillo-Ledesma; Christopher G Myers; Lauren Beljak; Justin Chen; Sami Dakhel; Daniel Darling; Sayak Ghosh; Joseph Hall; Mikaeel Jan; Emily Liang; Sera Saju; Mackenzie Vohr; Chris Wu; Yifan Xu; Eva Xue Journal: Annu Rev Biophys Date: 2021-02-19 Impact factor: 12.981
Authors: Reyhaneh Esmaielbeiki; Konrad Krawczyk; Bernhard Knapp; Jean-Christophe Nebel; Charlotte M Deane Journal: Brief Bioinform Date: 2015-05-13 Impact factor: 11.622