Skip Navigation



Briefings in Bioinformatics Advance Access published online on April 3, 2009

Briefings in Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bib/bbp021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
10/3/233    most recent
bbp021v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ezkurdia, I.
Right arrow Articles by Tress, M. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ezkurdia, I.
Right arrow Articles by Tress, M. L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

Progress and challenges in predicting protein–protein interaction sites

Iakes Ezkurdia, Lisa Bartoli, Piero Fariselli, Rita Casadio, Alfonso Valencia and Michael L. Tress

Corresponding author. Michael Tress, CNIO, c./ Melchor Fernandez Almagro 3, Madrid 28029, Spain. Tel: +34 91 732 8000; Fax: +34 912 246 980; E-mail: mtress{at}cnio.es

The identification of protein–protein interaction sites is an essential intermediate step for mutant design and the prediction of protein networks. In recent years a significant number of methods have been developed to predict these interface residues and here we review the current status of the field. Progress in this area requires a clear view of the methodology applied, the data sets used for training and testing the systems, and the evaluation procedures. We have analysed the impact of a representative set of features and algorithms and highlighted the problems inherent in generating reliable protein data sets and in the posterior analysis of the results. Although it is clear that there have been some improvements in methods for predicting interacting sites, several major bottlenecks remain. Proteins in complexes are still under-represented in the structural databases and in particular many proteins involved in transient complexes are still to be crystallized. We provide suggestions for effective feature selection, and make it clear that community standards for testing, training and performance measures are necessary for progress in the field.

Keywords: protein–protein interaction, binding sites, protein complexes, prediction, machine learning

Submitted: November 3, 2008. Received (in revised form): March 11, 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.