skip to main content

Title: Identification of all-against-all protein–protein interactions based on deep hash learning
Abstract Background

Protein–protein interaction (PPI) is vital for life processes, disease treatment, and drug discovery. The computational prediction of PPI is relatively inexpensive and efficient when compared to traditional wet-lab experiments. Given a new protein, one may wish to find whether the protein has any PPI relationship with other existing proteins. Current computational PPI prediction methods usually compare the new protein to existing proteins one by one in a pairwise manner. This is time consuming.


In this work, we propose a more efficient model, called deep hash learning protein-and-protein interaction (DHL-PPI), to predict all-against-all PPI relationships in a database of proteins. First, DHL-PPI encodes a protein sequence into a binary hash code based on deep features extracted from the protein sequences using deep learning techniques. This encoding scheme enables us to turn the PPI discrimination problem into a much simpler searching problem. The binary hash code for a protein sequence can be regarded as a number. Thus, in the pre-screening stage of DHL-PPI, the string matching problem of comparing a protein sequence against a database withMproteins can be transformed into a much more simpler problem: to find a number inside a sorted array of lengthM. This pre-screening process narrows down the more » search to a much smaller set of candidate proteins for further confirmation. As a final step, DHL-PPI uses the Hamming distance to verify the final PPI relationship.


The experimental results confirmed that DHL-PPI is feasible and effective. Using a dataset with strictly negative PPI examples of four species, DHL-PPI is shown to be superior or competitive when compared to the other state-of-the-art methods in terms of precision, recall or F1 score. Furthermore, in the prediction stage, the proposed DHL-PPI reduced the time complexity from$$O(M^2)$$O(M2)to$$O(M\log M)$$O(MlogM)for performing an all-against-all PPI prediction for a database withMproteins. With the proposed approach, a protein database can be preprocessed and stored for later search using the proposed encoding scheme. This can provide a more efficient way to cope with the rapidly increasing volume of protein datasets.

« less
; ; ; ; ;
Award ID(s):
Publication Date:
Journal Name:
BMC Bioinformatics
Springer Science + Business Media
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Abstract

    Sequence mappability is an important task in genome resequencing. In the (km)-mappability problem, for a given sequenceTof lengthn, the goal is to compute a table whoseith entry is the number of indices$$j \ne i$$jisuch that the length-msubstrings ofTstarting at positionsiandjhave at mostkmismatches. Previous works on this problem focused on heuristics computing a rough approximation of the result or on the case of$$k=1$$k=1. We present several efficient algorithms for the general case of the problem. Our main result is an algorithm that, for$$k=O(1)$$k=O(1), works in$$O(n)$$O(n)space and, with high probability, in$$O(n \cdot \min \{m^k,\log ^k n\})$$O(n·min{mk,logkn})time. Our algorithm requires a careful adaptation of thek-errata trees of Cole et al. [STOC 2004] to avoid multiple counting of pairs of substrings. Our technique can also be applied to solve the all-pairs Hamming distance problem introduced by Crochemore et al. [WABI 2017]. We further develop$$O(n^2)$$O(n2)-time algorithms to computeall(km)-mappability tables for a fixedmand all$$k\in \{0,\ldots ,m\}$$k{0,,m}or a fixedkand all$$m\in \{k,\ldots ,n\}$$m{k,,n}. Finally, we show that, for$$k,m = \Theta (\log n)$$k,m=Θ(logn), the (km)-mappability problem cannot be solved in strongly subquadratic time unless the Strong Exponential Time Hypothesis fails. This is an improved and extended version of a paper presented at SPIRE 2018.

  2. Abstract

    We continue the program of proving circuit lower bounds via circuit satisfiability algorithms. So far, this program has yielded several concrete results, proving that functions in$\mathsf {Quasi}\text {-}\mathsf {NP} = \mathsf {NTIME}[n^{(\log n)^{O(1)}}]$Quasi-NP=NTIME[n(logn)O(1)]and other complexity classes do not have small circuits (in the worst case and/or on average) from various circuit classes$\mathcal { C}$C, by showing that$\mathcal { C}$Cadmits non-trivial satisfiability and/or#SAT algorithms which beat exhaustive search by a minor amount. In this paper, we present a new strong lower bound consequence of having a non-trivial#SAT algorithm for a circuit class${\mathcal C}$C. Say that a symmetric Boolean functionf(x1,…,xn) issparseif it outputs 1 onO(1) values of${\sum }_{i} x_{i}$ixi. We show that for every sparsef, and for all “typical”$\mathcal { C}$C, faster#SAT algorithms for$\mathcal { C}$Ccircuits imply lower bounds against the circuit class$f \circ \mathcal { C}$fC, which may bestrongerthan$\mathcal { C}$Citself. In particular:

    #SAT algorithms fornk-size$\mathcal { C}$C-circuits running in 2n/nktime (for allk) implyNEXPdoes not have$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$(fC)-circuits of polynomial size.

    #SAT algorithms for$2^{n^{{\varepsilon }}}$2nε-size$\mathcal { C}$C-circuits running in$2^{n-n^{{\varepsilon }}}$2nnεtime (for someε> 0) implyQuasi-NPdoes not have$(f \circ \mathcal { C})$(fC)-circuits of polynomial size.

    Applying#SAT algorithms from the literature, one immediate corollary of our results is thatQuasi-NPdoes not haveEMAJACC0THRcircuits of polynomialmore »size, whereEMAJis the “exact majority” function, improving previous lower bounds againstACC0[Williams JACM’14] andACC0THR[Williams STOC’14], [Murray-Williams STOC’18]. This is the first nontrivial lower bound against such a circuit class.

    « less
  3. Abstract

    In a Merlin–Arthur proof system, the proof verifier (Arthur) accepts valid proofs (from Merlin) with probability 1, and rejects invalid proofs with probability arbitrarily close to 1. The running time of such a system is defined to be the length of Merlin’s proof plus the running time of Arthur. We provide new Merlin–Arthur proof systems for some key problems in fine-grained complexity. In several cases our proof systems have optimal running time. Our main results include:

    Certifying that a list ofnintegers has no 3-SUM solution can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$\tilde{O}(n)$$O~(n). Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that the problem has a nondeterministic algorithm running in$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)time (that is, there is a proof system with proofs of length$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)and a deterministic verifier running in$$\tilde{O}(n^{1.5})$$O~(n1.5)time).

    Counting the number ofk-cliques with total edge weight equal to zero in ann-node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$${\tilde{O}}(n^{\lceil k/2\rceil })$$O~(nk/2)(where$$k\ge 3$$k3). For oddk, this bound can be further improved for sparse graphs: for example, counting the number of zero-weight triangles in anm-edge graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$${\tilde{O}}(m)$$O~(m). Previous Merlin–Arthur protocols by Williams [CCC’16] and Björklund and Kaski [PODC’16] could only countk-cliques in unweighted graphs, and had worse running times for smallk.

    Computing the All-Pairsmore »Shortest Distances matrix for ann-node graph can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$\tilde{O}(n^2)$$O~(n2). Note this is optimal, as the matrix can have$$\Omega (n^2)$$Ω(n2)nonzero entries in general. Previously, Carmosino et al. [ITCS 2016] showed that this problem has an$$\tilde{O}(n^{2.94})$$O~(n2.94)nondeterministic time algorithm.

    Certifying that ann-variablek-CNF is unsatisfiable can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{n/2 - n/O(k)}$$2n/2-n/O(k). We also observe an algebrization barrier for the previous$$2^{n/2}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$2n/2·poly(n)-time Merlin–Arthur protocol of R. Williams [CCC’16] for$$\#$$#SAT: in particular, his protocol algebrizes, and we observe there is no algebrizing protocol fork-UNSAT running in$$2^{n/2}/n^{\omega (1)}$$2n/2/nω(1)time. Therefore we have to exploit non-algebrizing properties to obtain our new protocol.

    Certifying a Quantified Boolean Formula is true can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{4n/5}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$24n/5·poly(n). Previously, the only nontrivial result known along these lines was an Arthur–Merlin–Arthur protocol (where Merlin’s proof depends on some of Arthur’s coins) running in$$2^{2n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$22n/3·poly(n)time.

    Due to the centrality of these problems in fine-grained complexity, our results have consequences for many other problems of interest. For example, our work implies that certifying there is no Subset Sum solution tonintegers can be done in Merlin–Arthur time$$2^{n/3}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$2n/3·poly(n), improving on the previous best protocol by Nederlof [IPL 2017] which took$$2^{0.49991n}\cdot \textrm{poly}(n)$$20.49991n·poly(n)time.

    « less
  4. Abstract

    Let$$X\rightarrow {{\mathbb {P}}}^1$$XP1be an elliptically fiberedK3 surface, admitting a sequence$$\omega _{i}$$ωiof Ricci-flat metrics collapsing the fibers. LetVbe a holomorphicSU(n) bundle overX, stable with respect to$$\omega _i$$ωi. Given the corresponding sequence$$\Xi _i$$Ξiof Hermitian–Yang–Mills connections onV, we prove that, ifEis a generic fiber, the restricted sequence$$\Xi _i|_{E}$$Ξi|Econverges to a flat connection$$A_0$$A0. Furthermore, if the restriction$$V|_E$$V|Eis of the form$$\oplus _{j=1}^n{\mathcal {O}}_E(q_j-0)$$j=1nOE(qj-0)forndistinct points$$q_j\in E$$qjE, then these points uniquely determine$$A_0$$A0.

  5. Abstract

    As the use of spectral/hpelement methods, and high-order finite element methods in general, continues to spread, community efforts to create efficient, optimized algorithms associated with fundamental high-order operations have grown. Core tasks such as solution expansion evaluation at quadrature points, stiffness and mass matrix generation, and matrix assembly have received tremendous attention. With the expansion of the types of problems to which high-order methods are applied, and correspondingly the growth in types of numerical tasks accomplished through high-order methods, the number and types of these core operations broaden. This work focuses on solution expansion evaluation at arbitrary points within an element. This operation is core to many postprocessing applications such as evaluation of streamlines and pathlines, as well as to field projection techniques such as mortaring. We expand barycentric interpolation techniques developed on an interval to 2D (triangles and quadrilaterals) and 3D (tetrahedra, prisms, pyramids, and hexahedra) spectral/hpelement methods. We provide efficient algorithms for their implementations, and demonstrate their effectiveness using the spectral/hpelement libraryNektar++by running a series of baseline evaluations against the ‘standard’ Lagrangian method, where an interpolation matrix is generated and matrix-multiplication applied to evaluate a point at a given location. We present results from a rigorous seriesmore »of benchmarking tests for a variety of element shapes, polynomial orders and dimensions. We show that when the point of interest is to be repeatedly evaluated, the barycentric method performs at worst$$50\%$$50%slower, when compared to a cached matrix evaluation. However, when the point of interest changes repeatedly so that the interpolation matrix must be regenerated in the ‘standard’ approach, the barycentric method yields far greater performance, with a minimum speedup factor of$$7\times $$7×. Furthermore, when derivatives of the solution evaluation are also required, the barycentric method in general slightly outperforms the cached interpolation matrix method across all elements and orders, with an up to$$30\%$$30%speedup. Finally we investigate a real-world example of scalar transport using a non-conformal discontinuous Galerkin simulation, in which we observe around$$6\times $$6×speedup in computational time for the barycentric method compared to the matrix-based approach. We also explore the complexity of both interpolation methods and show that the barycentric interpolation method requires$${\mathcal {O}}(k)$$O(k)storage compared to a best case space complexity of$${\mathcal {O}}(k^2)$$O(k2)for the Lagrangian interpolation matrix method.

    « less