Local structural preference maps encode transferable protein-interface energetics
Kienlein, M.; Menezes, F.; Grass, P.; Munker, S.; Siebenmorgen, T.; Popowicz, G. M.
Show abstract
Relating the drivers of binding affinity to structural features remains difficult because affinity emerges from many weak, context-dependent interactions, while experimental affinity and mutation data are limited. Here, we ask whether a machine-learning model can learn energetically relevant interaction preferences directly from native structures, without affinity or mutation labels. We decompose interfaces into local structural motifs and learn the compatibility of each motif with its surrounding molecular environment. Applied across a protein surface, these models yield target preference maps (TPMs), spatial fields of local interaction compatibility. Trained exclusively on native antibody-antigen structures without affinity or mutation labels, TPMs recover charged, aromatic and backbone-mediated recognition across peptide-protein and other non-antibody interfaces. On an out-of-domain SKEMPI benchmark, wild-type TPM scores discriminated mutation-sensitive positions (AUC 0.643, n=1323), while TPM-based substitution scores ranked alternative amino acids comparably to FoldX and Rosetta Flex {Delta}{Delta}G. These results show that native interface structures can supervise learning of transferable, energetically relevant molecular preferences without direct thermodynamic labels.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- BindPred: A Framework for Predicting Protein-Protein Binding Affinity from Language Model Embeddings 95%
- Evaluating Deep Learning Based Structure Prediction Methods on Antibody-Antigen Complexes 95%
- Deep Local Analysis deconstructs protein-protein interfaces and accurately estimates binding affinity changes upon mutation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.