Hierarchical Multi-Label Contrastive Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Across Organisms

Buwen Liang; Renjing Xu; Shiyi Liu; Yuetong Fang; Zixuan Jiang

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Hierarchical Multi-Label Contrastive Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Across Organisms

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Hierarchical contrastive learning over Pfam clan-family labels improves protein-protein interaction prediction and transfers to new species.

desk verdict Solid intra-species results with a real hierarchical-supervision finding, but the cross-species zero-shot claim is uninterpretable until the evaluation graph is specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02724 v3 pith:PP6FGMQA submitted 2025-07-03 cs.LG q-bio.BM

Shiyi Liu , Buwen Liang , Yuetong Fang , Zixuan Jiang , Renjing Xu This is my paper

classification cs.LGq-bio.BM

keywords protein-proteininteractionpredictionhierarchicalcontrastivelearningcross-speciesgeneralizationPfamclan-familyhierarchysequence-annotationalignmentgraphneuralnetworkzero-shottransfermulti-labelproteinclassification

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

HIPPO is a pretraining framework that aligns protein sequences with hierarchical biological annotations, then fine-tunes a graph network for protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction. The paper's central contention is that shaping the embedding space with the Pfam clan-family hierarchy improves PPI prediction, and that this structured supervision is what enables transfer across species. On human benchmarks, HIPPO reports an average micro-F1 gain of 2.9% over the best baseline; on six non-human test species, it reports the highest F1 score in every species. If this holds, interaction screens for rare or poorly characterized organisms could be built from sequence and annotation data rather than expensive species-specific experiments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a clan-family tree of 621 clans and 6,329 families from Pfam, used as multi-label supervision in a hierarchical contrastive loss (Eq. 1). The loss, adapted from the HiMulConE constraint, enforces that confidence in a higher-level ancestor never falls below confidence in its descendants, pulling proteins with shared evolutionary ancestry together at the correct level of granularity. Around this hierarchy, a ProteinBERT-style sequence encoder and an annotation language model are aligned by a symmetric InfoNCE loss (Eq. 3) and a focal sequence-annotation matching loss (Eq. 4), then a Graph Isomorphism Network propagates PPI network context before a dot-product classifier.

What would settle it

A falsifying observation would be cross-species micro-F1 that does not increase with annotation coverage: restrict the test set to proteins without any Pfam clan assignment and compare HIPPO with an annotation-free sequence-only encoder. If the two perform the same on those proteins, the hierarchy is not what drives transfer.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that protein-protein interaction prediction improves when protein embeddings are pretrained against a hierarchy of functional labels, specifically the Pfam clan-family tree, alongside flat sequence-annotation alignment. The paper argues that proteins sharing evolutionary ancestry also share interaction determinants, so multi-label contrastive supervision makes related proteins cluster in embedding space without needing interaction labels for them. Evidence includes a 2.9% average micro-F1 improvement over the best baseline on human benchmarks, the top F1 in all six cross-species benchmarks, and an up-to-15% drop in F1 when hierarchical labels are removed, with the largest loss on pairs whose proteins were both unseen during training. The model also localizes binding sites better with hierarchy, raising attention overlap on one complex from 0.406 to 0.719.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that Pfam clan/family and Swiss-Prot keyword annotations are present and predictive for the proteins being scored; if those labels are missing or uninformative, the model loses its supervision signal and the cross-species advantage may disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A model pretrained on human sequences can score PPIs in other species without retraining, which would make rare-organism interactome mapping cheaper.
The largest gains occur for pairs of completely unseen proteins, so the hierarchy compensates exactly where sequence-only encoders are weakest.
Removing hierarchical supervision costs up to 15% in micro-F1, so hierarchy is a substantive part of the learned representation, not a minor regularizer.
Hierarchically trained attention identifies interaction interfaces more precisely, which could make predicted PPIs more interpretable and easier to test.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the supervision comes from Swiss-Prot/Pfam annotations, the method's cross-species advantage should scale with annotation coverage; a testable extension the paper does not report is stratifying test proteins by whether they have a clan or family assignment.
The pretraining objective is not task-specific, so the same hierarchical contrastive scheme could be applied to protein function prediction or binding-site prediction directly, not just to PPI classification.
If the hard-pair gains hold on larger interactomes, hierarchical supervision would become a low-cost complement to experimental interaction assays for prioritizing candidates in under-studied species.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the hierarchical contrastive pretraining idea is sensible and the ablations show it does something: removing hierarchical supervision drops F1 by up to 15%, especially on hard pairs. Second, the cross-species zero-shot claim is currently unverifiable because the paper never says what graph the GIN sees when scoring target-species pairs. If those pairs' known interactions are used as edges, the comparison measures transductive exploitation, not sequence transfer.

The new piece is the combination of HiMulConE's hierarchical loss with ProteinBERT-style sequence-annotation alignment, applied to PPI prediction. Each ingredient is published, but the specific mix is new, and the binding-site attention analysis is a nice extra. The dataset choice (Pfam clans/families, Swiss-Prot keywords) is reasonable, and the model description is clear.

Now the soft spots. The biggest is the missing cross-species protocol. Section 3.2 defines the graph for training, but Section 2.4 never states how it is built for E. coli, yeast, etc. This is not a minor omission; it controls whether the zero-shot numbers mean anything. The paper must report whether target-graph edges are masked, and ideally compare against sequence-only baselines with the same graph. Second, Sec 3.4 says 'we report the best performance' over five seeds. That is not acceptable for claiming SOTA; give means and standard deviations. Third, the dataset description in Sec 3.1 has SHS27k with 63,408 interactions and SHS148k with 36,902, which is backwards relative to the names. Minor, but it signals sloppy data reporting. Fourth, the cross-species assumption that Pfam/Swiss-Prot annotations are available for uncharacterized proteins is never stress-tested; no analysis of performance vs. annotation coverage. The 1.7% loss to GNN-PPI under random split is fine as long as the SOTA wording is softened.

The math is straightforward—the losses are standard contrastive variants, no circular fitting. The citation pattern looks fair: HiMulConE and ProteinBERT are credited.

Who should read this? People working on contrastive pretraining for protein interaction prediction, and anyone building on hierarchical label losses. The intra-species results might survive scrutiny after the seed reporting is fixed; the cross-species claim will need a real protocol.

My recommendation: send to peer review, but with a clear request for the cross-species graph construction and seed-level results. Without those, the cross-species section should not be cited.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes HIPPO, a hierarchical contrastive learning framework for protein-protein interaction (PPI) prediction. It combines ProteinBERT-style sequence and annotation encoders with hierarchical clan/family contrastive losses adapted from HiMulConE, a sequence-annotation InfoNCE alignment term, a focal-loss matching objective, and a GIN encoder over the PPI graph. Experiments cover intra-species multi-label PPI prediction on human SHS27k and SHS148k under Random/BFS/DFS splits, zero-shot cross-species prediction on six model organisms, ablations of hierarchical and keyword supervision, and attention-based binding-site analyses. The central claims are state-of-the-art predictive performance and zero-shot transferability to other species without retraining.

Significance. If the empirical claims were established, HIPPO would make a useful contribution: it demonstrates a concrete way to inject Pfam clan/family hierarchy and Swiss-Prot keyword annotations into PPI representation learning, with plausible gains on hard unseen-protein pairs. The manuscript is broad in scope, evaluating five baselines across six species and providing attention-based binding-site validation. Credit is due for presenting the full loss formulation (Eqs. 1-5) and a clear architecture diagram. However, the current evaluation has unresolved protocol questions about graph construction, seeded-run reporting, and dataset statistics, so the significance of the central SOTA claim cannot be assessed until those points are fixed.

major comments (5)

[§3.2 and §2.4] The paper never specifies whether test edges are masked when the GIN computes node embeddings. In §3.2 the dataset is defined as G=(P,X) with X_train ∪ X_test = X, and the GIN aggregates over edges in this graph; if the graph used at inference contains the edge being scored, the model receives label information through message passing. This would make the cross-species comparison in §2.4, and the claimed zero-shot advantage over sequence-only baselines, an artifact of transductive graph exploitation rather than sequence transfer. Please state the exact edge set used for message passing in each evaluation, for both intra-species and cross-species settings, and confirm that the same masking protocol was applied to GNN-PPI and all other graph-based baselines.
[§3.4] Section 3.4 states that each experiment is run five times with different random seeds and that the best performance is reported. Best-of-five reporting inflates scores and makes the asterisk significance claims in Fig. 2 impossible to interpret unless the same seeds and selection rule were used for every baseline. Please report mean ± standard deviation over seeds, state how many of the five seeds favored HIPPO over each baseline, and report whether all methods used identical seed sets; the 2.9% average improvement is not interpretable without this information.
[§2.2 vs. §2.4] The results section concedes that GNN-PPI outperforms HIPPO by 1.7% under the random split on SHS27k (§2.2), while §2.4 asserts that HIPPO consistently outperforms five baselines across all cross-species datasets. Since random splitting is the most widely used protocol in PPI benchmarks, the qualified result should be reflected in the abstract and conclusion, or the cross-species claim should be restricted to the splits and settings where the advantage actually holds.
[§3.1] The dataset statistics are inconsistent as written: §3.1 reports that SHS27k comprises 63,408 interactions and SHS148k includes 36,902 interactions, which conflicts with the dataset names and with the original SHS27k/SHS148k definitions used by the baselines. Please verify the interaction counts, correct the text, and state whether the same data files were used for all methods; otherwise the comparison with published numbers is not reproducible.
[§3.3 and §2.4] The pretraining objectives in Eqs. (1)-(4) require hierarchical and keyword annotations for every sequence in the batch. The cross-species experiments do not report the coverage of Pfam families/clans and Swiss-Prot keywords in the six target proteomes, and no ablation varies annotation coverage. For uncharacterized proteins in rare organisms, missing annotations would remove the proposed supervisory signal, and the cross-species advantage may reduce to the underlying sequence encoder alone. Please report coverage statistics and performance broken down by annotation availability, or explicitly describe how missing labels are handled.

minor comments (6)

[Fig. 4 caption] The caption says five cross-species datasets but lists six species (E. coli, S. cerevisiae, C. elegans, M. musculus, A. thaliana, D. melanogaster); the text also says six. Please correct the caption.
[Eq. (3)] The notation is inconsistent: the text defines annotation embeddings as zT_i, but the first numerator uses zA_i and zA_j. Please unify the symbols for sequence and annotation embeddings throughout Eq. (3).
[Fig. 2] Panel labels are confusing: panels labeled D appear twice, and the text refers to both Fig. 2D and Fig. 3E for the keyword ablation. Please renumber the panels and update all cross-references.
[Fig. 1 and §3.2] The caption of Fig. 1 says two trainable graph isomorphism blocks, while §3.2 says three recursive GIN blocks. Please make the architecture description consistent.
[Eq. (1)] The term L_pair_max(l-1) in Eq. (1) is not defined in the manuscript. Please provide its definition or cite the exact equation from the HiMulConE paper it is taken from.
[References] Reference [11] contains a stray question mark, and references [12] and [25] duplicate the same Contrastive Predictive Coding paper. Please clean up the reference list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: HIPPO's PPI predictions are trained on external STRING labels with Pfam/Swiss-Prot annotations as exogenous inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is empirical: PPI type predictions come from a GIN plus MLP trained with binary cross-entropy over STRING interaction labels (Sec. 3.2), while hierarchical family/clan labels from Pfam and keyword annotations from Swiss-Prot are external inputs (Sec. 3.1, 3.3). The hierarchical contrastive loss in Eq. (1) is adopted from the published, peer-reviewed HiMulConE framework [22]; although one author overlaps, the cited method is independently benchmarked on non-PPI data and is not a fitted parameter of this paper, so it does not constitute load-bearing self-citation. The PPI labels are not used to construct the contrastive positive pairs (those are defined by Pfam ancestry), and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The abstract's 'zero-shot transferability' is an empirical generalization claim, not a derivation from the model's inputs. A remaining experimental concern is that Sec. 3.2 defines the PPI graph as G=(P,X) without specifying whether target-species test edges are included during cross-species inference; if they were, that would be label leakage and a validity problem, but the paper does not state this, so no circular reduction can be exhibited under the required evidence standard. The limitations paragraph acknowledges annotation-coverage constraints, which is an external-data issue rather than circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on external label quality and on several undisclosed hyperparameters, but not on invented scientific entities.

free parameters (3)

Hierarchical contrastive loss weights lambda_l
Used in Eq. (1), no values or selection procedure reported in Sec 3.3.
Temperature tau in InfoNCE losses
Appears in Eq. (2) and (3), no schedule or value given.
Focal loss parameters alpha and gamma in SAM loss
Appear in Eq. (4), no values given.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Pfam clan-family tree is a correct, transferable hierarchy of protein evolution and function.
Used to define positive pairs and hierarchical contrastive loss in Sec 3.1 and Eq. (1).
domain assumption STRING-derived interaction labels and the random/BFS/DFS splits are reliable ground truth.
All F1 evaluations in Sec 2 and Sec 3.2 depend on these labels and splits.
domain assumption ProteinBERT sequence and annotation encoders are adequate base representations for cross-species transfer.
Sec 3.3 reuses ProteinBERT's encoder architecture and end-to-end pretraining.
domain assumption Sequence-based features suffice for PPI prediction because IDRs make structure-based methods less suitable.
Sec 1 argues this but does not benchmark against structure-aware predictors.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Hierarchical Multi-Label Contrastive Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Across Organisms." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PP6FGMQA

@misc{pith2026250702724,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Hierarchical Multi-Label Contrastive Learning for Protein-Protein Interaction Prediction Across Organisms},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PP6FGMQA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02724}
}

read the original abstract

Recent advances in AI for science have highlighted the power of contrastive learning in bridging heterogeneous biological data modalities. Building on this paradigm, we propose HIPPO (HIerarchical Protein-Protein interaction prediction across Organisms), a hierarchical contrastive framework for protein-protein interaction(PPI) prediction, where protein sequences and their hierarchical attributes are aligned through multi-tiered biological representation matching. The proposed approach incorporates hierarchical contrastive loss functions that emulate the structured relationship among functional classes of proteins. The framework adaptively incorporates domain and family knowledge through a data-driven penalty mechanism, enforcing consistency between the learned embedding space and the intrinsic hierarchy of protein functions. Experiments on benchmark datasets demonstrate that HIPPO achieves state-of-the-art performance, outperforming existing methods and showing robustness in low-data regimes. Notably, the model demonstrates strong zero-shot transferability to other species without retraining, enabling reliable PPI prediction and functional inference even in less characterized or rare organisms where experimental data are limited. Further analysis reveals that hierarchical feature fusion is critical for capturing conserved interaction determinants, such as binding motifs and functional annotations. This work advances cross-species PPI prediction and provides a unified framework for interaction prediction in scenarios with sparse or imbalanced multi-species data.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[1]

International journal of molecular sciences10(6), 2763–2788 (2009)

Br¨ uckner, A., Polge, C., Lentze, N., Auerbach, D., Schlattner, U.: Yeast two- hybrid, a powerful tool for systems biology. International journal of molecular sciences10(6), 2763–2788 (2009)

work page 2009
[2]

2D PAGE: sample preparation and fractionation, 349–364 (2008) 15

Kaboord, B., Perr, M.: Isolation of proteins and protein complexes by immuno- precipitation. 2D PAGE: sample preparation and fractionation, 349–364 (2008) 15

work page 2008
[3]

Molecular and cellular biology17(6), 3094–3102 (1997)

Aronheim, A., Zandi, E., Hennemann, H., Elledge, S.J., Karin, M.: Isolation of an ap-1 repressor by a novel method for detecting protein-protein interactions. Molecular and cellular biology17(6), 3094–3102 (1997)

work page 1997
[4]

Elife5, 12509 (2016)

Tan, D., Li, Q., Zhang, M.-J., Liu, C., Ma, C., Zhang, P., Ding, Y.-H., Fan, S.-B., Tao, L., Yang, B.,et al.: Trifunctional cross-linker for mapping protein-protein interaction networks and comparing protein conformational states. Elife5, 12509 (2016)

work page 2016
[5]

Nature Protocols15(12), 3971–3999 (2020)

Cho, K.F., Branon, T.C., Udeshi, N.D., Myers, S.A., Carr, S.A., Ting, A.Y.: Proximity labeling in mammalian cells with turboid and split-turboid. Nature Protocols15(12), 3971–3999 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(24), 2220778120 (2023)

Singh, R., Sledzieski, S., Bryson, B., Cowen, L., Berger, B.: Contrastive learning in protein language space predicts interactions between drugs and protein targets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(24), 2220778120 (2023)

work page 2023
[7]

International journal of molecular sciences23(21), 13568 (2022)

Zhang, Y., Luo, M., Wu, P., Wu, S., Lee, T.-Y., Bai, C.: Application of compu- tational biology and artificial intelligence in drug design. International journal of molecular sciences23(21), 13568 (2022)

work page 2022
[8]

nature596(7873), 583–589 (2021)

Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., ˇZ ´ ıdek, A., Potapenko, A.,et al.: Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature596(7873), 583–589 (2021)

2021

Show all 26 references

[9]

Nature Communications14(1), 7370 (2023)

Kim, G.B., Kim, J.Y., Lee, J.A., Norsigian, C.J., Palsson, B.O., Lee, S.Y.: Func- tional annotation of enzyme-encoding genes using deep learning with transformer layers. Nature Communications14(1), 7370 (2023)

2023
[10]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06709 (2021)

Lv, G., Hu, Z., Bi, Y., Zhang, S.: Learning unknown from correlations: graph neural network for inter-novel-protein interaction prediction. arXiv preprint arXiv:2105.06709 (2021)

2021 arXiv
[11]

In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp

Radford, A., Kim, J.W., Hallacy, C., Ramesh, A., Goh, G., Agarwal, S., Sastry, G., Askell, A., Mishkin, P., Clark, J.,et al.: Learning transferable visual models from natural language supervision. In: International Conference on Machine Learning, pp. 8748–8763 (2021). PMLR

2021
[13]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 1(2), 3 (2022)

Ramesh, A., Dhariwal, P., Nichol, A., Chu, C., Chen, M.: Hierarchical text- conditional image generation with clip latents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.06125 1(2), 3 (2022)

2022 arXiv
[14]

Nature genetics25(1), 25–29 (2000)

Ashburner, M., Ball, C.A., Blake, J.A., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J.M., Davis, A.P., Dolinski, K., Dwight, S.S., Eppig, J.T.,et al.: Gene ontology: tool 16 for the unification of biology. Nature genetics25(1), 25–29 (2000)

2000
[15]

Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology16(1), 18–29 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1038/nrm3920

Wright, P.E., Dyson, H.J.: Intrinsically disordered proteins in cellular signalling and regulation. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology16(1), 18–29 (2015) https: //doi.org/10.1038/nrm3920

2015 doi
[16]

Nature Communications14(1), 1093 (2023)

Gao, Z., Jiang, C., Zhang, J., Jiang, X., Li, L., Zhao, P., Yang, H., Huang, Y., Li, J.: Hierarchical graph learning for protein–protein interaction. Nature Communications14(1), 1093 (2023)

2023
[17]

arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14391 (2024)

Wu, L., Tian, Y., Huang, Y., Li, S., Lin, H., Chawla, N.V., Li, S.Z.: Mape- ppi: Towards effective and efficient protein-protein interaction prediction via microenvironment-aware protein embedding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.14391 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[18]

Nucleic acids research28(1), 45–48 (2000)

Bairoch, A., Apweiler, R.: The swiss-prot protein sequence database and its supplement trembl in 2000. Nucleic acids research28(1), 45–48 (2000)

2000
[19]

Nucleic acids research49(D1), 412–419 (2021)

Mistry, J., Chuguransky, S., Williams, L., Qureshi, M., Salazar, G.A., Sonnham- mer, E.L., Tosatto, S.C., Paladin, L., Raj, S., Richardson, L.J.,et al.: Pfam: The protein families database in 2021. Nucleic acids research49(D1), 412–419 (2021)

2021
[20]

Nucleic acids research 53(D1), 523–534 (2025)

Paysan-Lafosse, T., Andreeva, A., Blum, M., Chuguransky, S.R., Grego, T., Pinto, B.L., Salazar, G.A., Bileschi, M.L., Llinares-L´ opez, F., Meng-Papaxanthos, L.,et al.: The pfam protein families database: embracing ai/ml. Nucleic acids research 53(D1), 523–534 (2025)

2025
[21]

Xu, K., Hu, W., Leskovec, J., Jegelka, S.: How powerful are graph neural networks? arXiv preprint arXiv:1810.00826 (2018)

2018 arXiv
[22]

In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp

Zhang, S., Xu, R., Xiong, C., Ramaiah, C.: Use all the labels: A hierarchical multi-label contrastive learning framework. In: Proceedings of the IEEE/CVF Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition, pp. 16660–16669 (2022)

2022
[23]

Bioinformatics38(8), 2102–2110 (2022)

Brandes, N., Ofer, D., Peleg, Y., Rappoport, N., Linial, M.: Proteinbert: a univer- sal deep-learning model of protein sequence and function. Bioinformatics38(8), 2102–2110 (2022)

2022
[24]

arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02181 (2019)

Jin, Q., Dhingra, B., Cohen, W.W., Lu, X.: Probing biomedical embeddings from language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.02181 (2019)

2019 arXiv
[25]

CoRRabs/1807.03748(2018)

Oord, A., Li, Y., Vinyals, O.: Representation learning with contrastive predictive coding. CoRRabs/1807.03748(2018)

2018 arXiv
[26]

PNAS (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1101/622803

Rives, A., Meier, J., Sercu, T., Goyal, S., Lin, Z., Liu, J., Guo, D., Ott, M., Zitnick, C.L., Ma, J., Fergus, R.: Biological structure and function emerge from scaling 17 unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. PNAS (2019) https:// doi.org/10.1101/622803

2019 doi
[27]

Briefings in Bioinformatics25(5), 405 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbae405 18

Szymborski, J., Emad, A.: Intrepppid—an orthologue-informed quintuplet net- work for cross-species prediction of protein–protein interaction. Briefings in Bioinformatics25(5), 405 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1093/bib/bbae405 18

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

International journal of molecular sciences10(6), 2763–2788 (2009)

Br¨ uckner, A., Polge, C., Lentze, N., Auerbach, D., Schlattner, U.: Yeast two- hybrid, a powerful tool for systems biology. International journal of molecular sciences10(6), 2763–2788 (2009)

work page 2009

[2] [2]

2D PAGE: sample preparation and fractionation, 349–364 (2008) 15

Kaboord, B., Perr, M.: Isolation of proteins and protein complexes by immuno- precipitation. 2D PAGE: sample preparation and fractionation, 349–364 (2008) 15

work page 2008

[3] [3]

Molecular and cellular biology17(6), 3094–3102 (1997)

Aronheim, A., Zandi, E., Hennemann, H., Elledge, S.J., Karin, M.: Isolation of an ap-1 repressor by a novel method for detecting protein-protein interactions. Molecular and cellular biology17(6), 3094–3102 (1997)

work page 1997

[4] [4]

Elife5, 12509 (2016)

Tan, D., Li, Q., Zhang, M.-J., Liu, C., Ma, C., Zhang, P., Ding, Y.-H., Fan, S.-B., Tao, L., Yang, B.,et al.: Trifunctional cross-linker for mapping protein-protein interaction networks and comparing protein conformational states. Elife5, 12509 (2016)

work page 2016

[5] [5]

Nature Protocols15(12), 3971–3999 (2020)

Cho, K.F., Branon, T.C., Udeshi, N.D., Myers, S.A., Carr, S.A., Ting, A.Y.: Proximity labeling in mammalian cells with turboid and split-turboid. Nature Protocols15(12), 3971–3999 (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(24), 2220778120 (2023)

Singh, R., Sledzieski, S., Bryson, B., Cowen, L., Berger, B.: Contrastive learning in protein language space predicts interactions between drugs and protein targets. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences120(24), 2220778120 (2023)

work page 2023

[7] [7]

International journal of molecular sciences23(21), 13568 (2022)

Zhang, Y., Luo, M., Wu, P., Wu, S., Lee, T.-Y., Bai, C.: Application of compu- tational biology and artificial intelligence in drug design. International journal of molecular sciences23(21), 13568 (2022)

work page 2022

[8] [8]

nature596(7873), 583–589 (2021)

Jumper, J., Evans, R., Pritzel, A., Green, T., Figurnov, M., Ronneberger, O., Tunyasuvunakool, K., Bates, R., ˇZ ´ ıdek, A., Potapenko, A.,et al.: Highly accurate protein structure prediction with alphafold. nature596(7873), 583–589 (2021)

2021