Back

The Hidden Disorder Divide: Reconciling Benchmark Inconsistencies in Intrinsically Disordered Protein Binding Site Prediction

Malhis, N.; Mehdiabadi, M.; Erdos, G.; Gsponer, J.; Kurgan, L.; Tosatto, S. C. E.; Dosztanyi, Z.; Piovesan, D.

2026-06-27 bioinformatics
10.64898/2026.06.24.733783 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Computational predictors of protein-binding sites within intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) show highly inconsistent performance across high-quality benchmark datasets. To understand the origins of these discrepancies, we systematically compared predictors across three independent test sets: two CAID datasets updated with the latest DisProt annotations and a composite dataset (DBs) assembled from DIBS, FuzDB, IDEAL, and MFIB. Predictors trained predominantly on DisProt data achieved substantially higher AUCs on the CAID sets but performed poorly on the DBs. In contrast, predictors trained on older, low-quality PDB-based datasets showed balanced performance across all sets, with a slight preference for DBs. Predictors with mixed training exposure displayed intermediate behavior. Through controlled experiments using identical CNN architectures and feature analysis, we demonstrate that the dominant factor driving these performance differences is the intrinsic disorder propensity of the binding sites themselves. Binding residues in DisProt-based datasets exhibit markedly higher average disorder propensity scores than those in PDB-derived datasets. This previously unrecognized selection bias -- literature studies preferentially characterizing more disordered binding sites, while PDB-derived annotations capture less disordered ones -- effectively splits IDR-protein binding sites into two distinct categories. Predictors optimized on one category therefore generalize poorly to the other. Binding-site length and sequence conservation play only minor or negligible roles in explaining the observed inconsistencies. These findings highlight a critical limitation in current benchmarking practices and training strategies for IDR-binding site prediction, underscoring the need for more balanced and disorder-aware reference datasets. Finally, the diagnostic techniques introduced here could prove valuable beyond the specific application examined in this study.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Protein Science
246 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
12.8%
2
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 3%
9.8%
3
Journal of Chemical Information and Modeling
238 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
9.0%
4
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
7.9%
5
Proteins: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics
88 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.6%
6
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 18%
5.2%
50% of probability mass above
7
Journal of Molecular Biology
232 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
8
Briefings in Bioinformatics
354 papers in training set
Top 2%
4.1%
9
Journal of Cheminformatics
29 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.3%
10
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 10%
3.2%
11
Bioinformatics Advances
203 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.2%
12
ACS Omega
105 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
3.2%
13
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.7%
14
International Journal of Molecular Sciences
494 papers in training set
Top 6%
2.1%
15
Journal of Chemical Theory and Computation
140 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.9%
16
Human Genetics and Genomics Advances
84 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Frontiers in Bioinformatics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.7%
18
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 19%
1.3%
19
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.1%
20
Advanced Science
286 papers in training set
Top 9%
0.9%
21
Communications Chemistry
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
22
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 56%
0.8%
23
Structure
193 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.6%
24
International Journal of Biological Macromolecules
76 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%