Integrating experimental and computational approaches for protein–protein interaction discovery

Machine Learning


  • Lalonde, S. et al. Molecular and cellular approaches for the detection of protein–protein interactions: latest techniques and current limitations. Plant J. 53, 610–635 (2008).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bechelli, S. & Delhommelle, J. AI’s role in pharmaceuticals: assisting drug design from protein interactions to drug development. Artif. Intell. Chem. 2, 100038 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Piehler, J. New methodologies for measuring protein interactions in vivo and in vitro. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 15, 4–14 (2005).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Louche, A., Salcedo, S. P. & Bigot, S. Protein–protein interactions: pull-down assays. In Bacterial Protein Secretion Systems. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1615 (eds Journet, L. & Cascales, E.) 247–255 (Humana, 2017).

  • Miura, K. An overview of current methods to confirm protein-protein interactions. Protein Pept. Lett. 25, 728–733 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenblatt, J. F., Alberts, B. M. & Krogan, N. J. Discovery and significance of protein-protein interactions in health and disease. Cell 187, 6501–6517 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ngounou Wetie, A. G. et al. Protein–protein interactions: switch from classical methods to proteomics and bioinformatics-based approaches. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 71, 205–228 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, F., Zheng, H., Wang, H. & Azuaje, F. From experimental approaches to computational techniques: a review on the prediction of protein-protein interactions. Adv. Artif. Intell. 2010, 924529 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarkar, D. & Saha, S. Machine-learning techniques for the prediction of protein–protein interactions. J. Biosci. 44, 104 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu, D., Chojnowski, G., Rosenthal, M. & Kosinski, J. AlphaPulldown—a python package for protein–protein interaction screens using AlphaFold-Multimer. Bioinformatics 39, btac749 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, T. et al. Machine learning on protein–protein interaction prediction: models, challenges and trends. Brief. Bioinform. 24, bbad076 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, I. M. & Paliashvili, K. Co-immunoprecipitation assays. In VEGF Signaling. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2475 (eds Fiedler, L. R. & Pellet-Many, C.) 125–132 (Humana, 2022).

  • Akbarzadeh, S., Coşkun, Ö & Günçer, B. Studying protein–protein interactions: latest and most popular approaches. J. Struct. Biol. 216, 108118 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Tang, Z. & Takahashi, Y. Analysis of protein–protein interaction by Co-IP in human cells. In Two-Hybrid Systems. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1794 (ed. Oñate-Sánchez, L.) 289–296 (Humana, 2018).

  • Lo Sardo, F. in Polycomb Group Proteins. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2655 (eds Lanzuolo, C. & Marasca, F.) 67–77 (Humana, 2023).

  • Lin, J.-S. & Lai, E.-M. Protein–protein interactions: co-immunoprecipitation. In Bacterial Protein Secretion Systems. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1615 (eds Journet, L. & Cascales, E.) 211–219 (Humana, 2017).

  • Yang, H. et al. The host antiviral protein SAMHD1 suppresses NF-κB activation by interacting with the IKK complex during inflammatory responses and viral infection. J. Biol. Chem. 299, 104750 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, J., Liao, Q. & Lu, C. SOX9 promotes the invasion and migration of lung adenocarcinoma cells by activating the RAP1 signaling pathway. BMC Pulm. Med. 23, 421 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Muñoz, A. & Castellano, M. M. Coimmunoprecipitation of interacting proteins in plants. In Two-Hybrid Systems. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1794 (ed. Oñate-Sánchez, L.) 279–287 (Humana, 2018).

  • Smith, D. B. & Johnson, K. S. Single-step purification of polypeptides expressed in Escherichia coli as fusions with glutathione S-transferase. Gene 67, 31–40 (1988).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Gnanasekaran, P. & Pappu, H. R. Detection of protein–protein interactions using glutathione-S-transferase (GST) pull-down assay technique. In Protein-Protein Interactions. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2690 (ed. Mukhtar, S.) 111–115 (Humana, 2023).

  • Lyu, S., Zhang, C., Hou, X. & Wang, A. Tag-based pull-down assay. In Plant Virology. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2400 (eds Wang, A. & Li, Y.) 105–114 (Humana, 2022).

  • Kim, S.-Y. & Hakoshima, T. GST Pull-down assay to measure complex formations. In The Hippo Pathway. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 1893 (ed. Hergovich, A.) 273–280 (Humana, 2019).

  • Rigaut, G. et al. A generic protein purification method for protein complex characterization and proteome exploration. Nat. Biotechnol. 17, 1030–1032 (1999).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. The tandem affinity purification technology: an overview. Biotechnol. Lett. 33, 1487–1499 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z. & Zheng, C. in Molecular Virology. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 2940 (ed. Zheng, C.) 33–42 (Humana, 2025).

  • Tang, X. & Bruce, J. E. in Mass Spectrometry of Proteins and Peptides. Methods In Molecular Biology, Vol. 492 (eds Lipton, M. S. & Paša-Tolic, L.) 283–293 (Humana, 2009).

  • Cheng, J., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., Wang, X. & Liu, G. Advances in crosslinking chemistry and proximity-enabled strategies: deciphering protein complexes and interactions. Org. Biomol. Chem. 22, 7549–7559 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, M. M. et al. High throughput protein fold identification by using experimental constraints derived from intramolecular cross-links and mass spectrometry. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 97, 5802–5806 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Leitner, A. et al. Toward increased reliability, transparency, and accessibility in cross-linking mass spectrometry. Structure 28, 1259–1268 (2020).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenz, S. et al. Reliable identification of protein-protein interactions by crosslinking mass spectrometry. Nat. Commun. 12, 3564 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fields, S. & Song, O. A novel genetic system to detect protein–protein interactions. Nature 340, 245–246 (1989).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ito, T. et al. A comprehensive two-hybrid analysis to explore the yeast protein interactome. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 98, 4569–4574 (2001).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Uetz, P. et al. A comprehensive analysis of protein–protein interactions in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nature 403, 623–627 (2000).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehla, J., Caufield, J. H. & Uetz, P. The yeast two-hybrid system: a tool for mapping protein–protein interactions. In Cold Spring Harb. Protoc. https://doi.org/10.1101/pdb.top083345 (2015).

  • Brückner, A., Polge, C., Lentze, N., Auerbach, D. & Schlattner, U. Yeast two-hybrid, a powerful tool for systems biology. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 10, 2763–2788 (2009).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Snider, J., Kittanakom, S., Curak, J. & Stagljar, I. Split-ubiquitin based membrane yeast two-hybrid (MYTH) system: a powerful tool for identifying protein-protein interactions. J. Vis. Exp. 36, e1698 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • He, R. & Li, X. Mammalian two-hybrid assay for detecting protein-protein interactions in vivo. In Genomics Protocols. Methods in Molecular Biology, Vol. 439 (eds Starkey, M. & Elaswarapu, R.) 327–337 (Humana, 2008).

  • Snider, J. et al. Fundamentals of protein interaction network mapping. Mol. Syst. Biol. 11, MSB156351 (2015).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Trinkle-Mulcahy, L. Recent advances in proximity-based labeling methods for interactome mapping. F1000Research 8, 135 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Schopp, I. M. et al. Split-BioID a conditional proteomics approach to monitor the composition of spatiotemporally defined protein complexes. Nat. Commun. 8, 15690 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Guo, J. et al. The development of proximity labeling technology and its applications in mammals, plants, and microorganisms. Cell Commun. Signal. 21, 269 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Turinsky, A. L., Razick, S., Turner, B., Donaldson, I. M. & Wodak, S. J. Literature curation of protein interactions: measuring agreement across major public databases. Database 2010, baq026 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • von Mering, C. STRING: a database of predicted functional associations between proteins. Nucleic Acids Res. 31, 258–261 (2003).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Oughtred, R. et al. The BioGRID database: a comprehensive biomedical resource of curated protein, genetic, and chemical interactions. Protein Sci. 30, 187–200 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Szklarczyk, D. et al. The STRING database in 2025: protein networks with directionality of regulation. Nucleic Acids Res. 53, D730–D737 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mosca, R., Céol, A. & Aloy, P. Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks. Nat. Methods 10, 47–53 (2013).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, H. B., Hirsh, A. E., Wall, D. P. & Eisen, M. B. Coevolution of gene expression among interacting proteins. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 101, 9033–9038 (2004).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, D. S. et al. Protein 3D structure computed from evolutionary sequence variation. PLoS One 6, e28766 (2011).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. A. et al. Sequence co-evolution gives 3D contacts and structures of protein complexes. eLife 3, e03430 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ovchinnikov, S., Kamisetty, H. & Baker, D. Robust and accurate prediction of residue–residue interactions across protein interfaces using evolutionary information. eLife 3, e02030 (2014).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopf, T. A. et al. The EVcouplings Python framework for coevolutionary sequence analysis. Bioinformatics 35, 1582–1584 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Cong, Q., Anishchenko, I., Ovchinnikov, S. & Baker, D. Protein interaction networks revealed by proteome coevolution. Science 365, 185–189 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Green, A. G. et al. Large-scale discovery of protein interactions at residue resolution using co-evolution calculated from genomic sequences. Nat. Commun. 12, 1396 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Pitre, S. et al. PIPE: a protein-protein interaction prediction engine based on the re-occurring short polypeptide sequences between known interacting protein pairs. BMC Bioinform. 7, 365 (2006).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Li, Y. & Ilie, L. SPRINT: ultrafast protein-protein interaction prediction of the entire human interactome. BMC Bioinform. 18, 485 (2017).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Murakami, Y. & Mizuguchi, K. Applying the Naïve Bayes classifier with kernel density estimation to the prediction of protein–protein interaction sites. Bioinformatics 26, 1841–1848 (2010).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanchez-Garcia, R., Sorzano, C. O. S., Carazo, J. M. & Segura, J. BIPSPI: a method for the prediction of partner-specific protein–protein interfaces. Bioinformatics 35, 470–477 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrey, D., Zhao, H., Trudeau, S. J., Murray, D. & Honig, B. PrePPI: a structure informed proteome-wide database of protein–protein interactions. J. Mol. Biol. 435, 168052 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Hashemifar, S., Neyshabur, B., Khan, A. A. & Xu, J. Predicting protein–protein interactions through sequence-based deep learning. Bioinformatics 34, i802–i810 (2018).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, M. et al. Multifaceted protein–protein interaction prediction based on Siamese residual RCNN. Bioinformatics 35, i305–i314 (2019).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Rives, A. et al. Biological structure and function emerge from scaling unsupervised learning to 250 million protein sequences. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2016239118 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bepler, T. & Berger, B. Learning the protein language: evolution, structure, and function. Cell Syst. 12, 654–669.e3 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Sledzieski, S., Singh, R., Cowen, L. & Berger, B. D-SCRIPT translates genome to phenome with sequence-based, structure-aware, genome-scale predictions of protein-protein interactions. Cell Syst. 12, 969–982.e6 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ko, Y. S., Parkinson, J., Liu, C. & Wang, W. TUnA: an uncertainty-aware transformer model for sequence-based protein–protein interaction prediction. Brief. Bioinform. 25, bbae359 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, D. et al. PLM-interact: extending protein language models to predict protein-protein interactions. Nat. Commun. 16, 9012 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Ullanat, V., Jing, B., Sledzieski, S. & Berger, B. Learning the language of protein-protein interactions. Nat. Commun. 17, 1199 (2026).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jumper, J. et al. Highly accurate protein structure prediction with AlphaFold. Nature 596, 583–589 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bertoline, L. M. F., Lima, A. N., Krieger, J. E. & Teixeira, S. K. Before and after AlphaFold2: an overview of protein structure prediction. Front. Bioinform. 3, 1120370 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yin, R., Feng, B. Y., Varshney, A. & Pierce, B. G. Benchmarking AlphaFold for protein complex modeling reveals accuracy determinants. Protein Sci. 31, e4379 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Mirdita, M. et al. ColabFold: making protein folding accessible to all. Nat. Methods 19, 679–682 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Evans, R. et al. Protein complex prediction with AlphaFold-Multimer. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.10.04.463034 (2022).

  • Dunbrack, R. L. Rēs ipSAE loquuntur: what’s wrong with AlphaFold’s ipTM score and how to fix it. Preprint at bioRxiv https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.02.10.637595 (2025).

  • Bryant, P., Pozzati, G. & Elofsson, A. Improved prediction of protein-protein interactions using AlphaFold2. Nat. Commun. 13, 1265 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryant, P. et al. Predicting the structure of large protein complexes using AlphaFold and Monte Carlo tree search. Nat. Commun. 13, 6028 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhu, W., Shenoy, A., Kundrotas, P. & Elofsson, A. Evaluation of AlphaFold-Multimer prediction on multi-chain protein complexes. Bioinformatics 39, btad424 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Bellinzona, G., Sassera, D. & Bonvin, A. M. J. J. Accelerating protein–protein interaction screens with reduced AlphaFold-Multimer sampling. Bioinform. Adv. 4, vbae153 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Molodenskiy, D. et al. AlphaPulldown2—a general pipeline for high-throughput structural modeling. Bioinformatics 41, btaf115 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, J. et al. Accurate structure prediction of biomolecular interactions with AlphaFold 3. Nature 630, 493–500 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Yang, Z., Zeng, X., Zhao, Y. & Chen, R. AlphaFold2 and its applications in the fields of biology and medicine. Signal Transduct. Target. Ther. 8, 115 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Baek, M. et al. Accurate prediction of protein structures and interactions using a three-track neural network. Science 373, 871–876 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • McLean, T. C. LazyAF, a pipeline for accessible medium-scale in silico prediction of protein-protein interactions. Microbiology 170, 001473 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh, R., Devkota, K., Sledzieski, S., Berger, B. & Cowen, L. Topsy-Turvy: integrating a global view into sequence-based PPI prediction. Bioinformatics 38, i264–i272 (2022).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, M. Recent advances in deep learning for protein-protein interaction analysis: a comprehensive review. Molecules 28, 5169 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Krapp, L. F., Abriata, L. A., Cortés Rodriguez, F. & Dal Peraro, M. PeSTo: parameter-free geometric deep learning for accurate prediction of protein binding interfaces. Nat. Commun. 14, 2175 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Jin, X. et al. TPepPro: a deep learning model for predicting peptide–protein interactions. Bioinformatics 41, btae708 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Farooq, Q. U. A., Shaukat, Z., Aiman, S. & Li, C.-H. Protein-protein interactions: methods, databases, and applications in virus-host study. World J. Virol. 10, 288–300 (2021).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, J.-W., Zhou, Y.-Q., Ul Qamar, M., Chen, L.-L. & Ding, Y.-D. Prediction of protein–protein interactions by evidence combining methods. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 17, 1946 (2016).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, Q. C. et al. Structure-based prediction of protein–protein interactions on a genome-wide scale. Nature 490, 556–560 (2012).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys, I. R. et al. Protein interactions in human pathogens revealed through deep learning. Nat. Microbiol. 9, 2642–2652 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Burke, D. F. et al. Towards a structurally resolved human protein interaction network. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol. 30, 216–225 (2023).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Reilly, F. J. et al. Protein complexes in cells by AI -assisted structural proteomics. Mol. Syst. Biol. 19, e11544 (2023).

    Google Scholar 

  • Trepte, P. et al. AI-guided pipeline for protein–protein interaction drug discovery identifies a SARS-CoV-2 inhibitor. Mol. Syst. Biol. 20, 428–457 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgania, H. K., Metz, J. & Jeske, M. ReLo is a simple and rapid colocalization assay to identify and characterize direct protein–protein interactions. Nat. Commun. 15, 2875 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Salgania, H. K. et al. Molecular insights into the Drosophila piRNA pathway via systematic ReLo protein interaction screening and structure prediction. Nucleic Acids Res. 53, gkaf993 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Stahl, K. et al. Modelling protein complexes with crosslinking mass spectrometry and deep learning. Nat. Commun. 15, 7866 (2024).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • Xie, Y. et al. Integrating diverse experimental information to assist protein complex structure prediction by GRASP. Nat. Methods 22, 2362–2374 (2025).

    Article 

    Google Scholar 

  • The OpenFold3 Team. OpenFold3-preview. Zenodo https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.19001000 (2026).



  • Source link