TANGO: A GO-Term Embedding Based Method for Protein Semantic Similarity Prediction

Current and future directions in network biology

Summary

Network biology is an interdisciplinary field bridging computational and biological sciences that has proved pivotal in advancing the understanding of cellular functions and diseases across biological systems and scales. Although the field has been around for two decades, it remains nascent. It has witnessed rapid evolution, accompanied by emerging challenges. These stem from various factors, notably the growing complexity and volume of data together with the increased diversity of data types describing different tiers of biological organization. We discuss prevailing research directions in network biology, focusing on molecular/cellular networks but also on other biological network types such as biomedical knowledge graphs, patient similarity networks, brain networks, and social/contact networks relevant to disease spread. In more detail, we highlight areas of inference and comparison of biological networks, multimodal data integration and heterogeneous networks, higher-order network analysis, machine learning on networks, and network-based personalized medicine. Following the overview of recent breakthroughs across these five areas, we offer a perspective on future directions of network biology. Additionally, we discuss scientific communities, educational initiatives, and the importance of fostering diversity within the field. This article establishes a roadmap for an immediate and long-term vision for network biology.

Availability and implementation

Not applicable.

Two sequence- and two structure-based ML models have learned different aspects of protein biochemistry

Deep learning models are seeing increased use as methods to predict mutational effects or allowed mutations in proteins. The models commonly used for these purposes include large language models (LLMs) and 3D Convolutional Neural Networks (CNNs). These two model types have very different architectures and are commonly trained on different representations of proteins. LLMs make use of the transformer architecture and are trained purely on protein sequences whereas 3D CNNs are trained on voxelized representations of local protein structure. While comparable overall prediction accuracies have been reported for both types of models, it is not known to what extent these models make comparable specific predictions and/or generalize protein biochemistry in similar ways. Here, we perform a systematic comparison of two LLMs and two structure-based models (CNNs) and show that the different model types have distinct strengths and weaknesses. The overall prediction accuracies are largely uncorrelated between the sequence- and structure-based models. Overall, the two structure-based models are better at predicting buried aliphatic and hydrophobic residues whereas the two LLMs are better at predicting solvent-exposed polar and charged amino acids. Finally, we find that a combined model that takes the individual model predictions as input can leverage these individual model strengths and results in significantly improved overall prediction accuracy.