skip to main content
US FlagAn official website of the United States government
dot gov icon
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
https lock icon
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( lock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


This content will become publicly available on August 1, 2026

Title: Empirical Assessment of Sequence-Based Predictions of Intrinsically Disordered Regions Involved in Phase Separation
Phase separation processes facilitate the formation of membrane-less organelles and involve interactions within structured domains and intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) in protein sequences. The literature suggests that the involvement of proteins in phase separation can be predicted from their sequences, leading to the development of over 30 computational predictors. We focused on intrinsic disorder due to its fundamental role in related diseases, and because recent analysis has shown that phase separation can be accurately predicted for structured proteins. We evaluated eight representative amino acid-level predictors of phase separation, capable of identifying phase-separating IDRs, using a well-annotated, low-similarity test dataset under two complementary evaluation scenarios. Several methods generate accurate predictions in the easier scenario that includes both structured and disordered sequences. However, we demonstrate that modern disorder predictors perform equally well in this scenario by effectively differentiating phase-separating IDRs from structured regions. In the second, more challenging scenario—considering only predictions in disordered regions—disorder predictors underperform, and most phase separation predictors produce only modestly accurate results. Moreover, some predictors are broadly biased to classify disordered residues as phase-separating, which results in low predictive performance in this scenario. Finally, we recommend PSPHunter as the most accurate tool for identifying phase-separating IDRs in both scenarios.  more » « less
Award ID(s):
2125218 2146027
PAR ID:
10646942
Author(s) / Creator(s):
; ; ;
Publisher / Repository:
MDPI
Date Published:
Journal Name:
Biomolecules
Volume:
15
Issue:
8
ISSN:
2218-273X
Page Range / eLocation ID:
1079
Format(s):
Medium: X
Sponsoring Org:
National Science Foundation
More Like this
  1. Intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) carry out many cellular functions and vary in length and placement in protein sequences. This diversity leads to variations in the underlying compositional biases, which were demonstrated for the short vs. long IDRs. We analyze compositional biases across four classes of disorder: fully disordered proteins; short IDRs; long IDRs; and binding IDRs. We identify three distinct biases: for the fully disordered proteins, the short IDRs and the long and binding IDRs combined. We also investigate compositional bias for putative disorder produced by leading disorder predictors and find that it is similar to the bias of the native disorder. Interestingly, the accuracy of disorder predictions across different methods is correlated with the correctness of the compositional bias of their predictions highlighting the importance of the compositional bias. The predictive quality is relatively low for the disorder classes with compositional bias that is the most different from the “generic” disorder bias, while being much higher for the classes with the most similar bias. We discover that different predictors perform best across different classes of disorder. This suggests that no single predictor is universally best and motivates the development of new architectures that combine models that target specific disorder classes. 
    more » « less
  2. Abstract Dozens of impactful methods that predict intrinsically disordered regions (IDRs) in protein sequences that interact with proteins and/or nucleic acids were developed. Their training and assessment rely on the IDR‐level binding annotations, while the equivalent structure‐trained methods predict more granular annotations of binding amino acids (AA). We compiled a new benchmark dataset that annotates binding AA in IDRs and applied it to complete a first‐of‐its‐kind assessment of predictions of the disordered binding residues. We evaluated a representative collection of 14 methods, used several hundred low‐similarity test proteins, and focused on the challenging task of differentiating these binding residues from other disordered AA and considering ligand type‐specific predictions (protein–protein vs. protein–nucleic acid interactions). We found that current methods struggle to accurately predict binding IDRs among disordered residues; however, better‐than‐random tools predict disordered binding residues significantly better than binding IDRs. We identified at least one relatively accurate tool for predicting disordered protein‐binding and disordered nucleic acid‐binding AA. Analysis of cross‐predictions between interactions with protein and nucleic acids revealed that most methods are ligand‐type‐agnostic. Only two predictors of the nucleic acid‐binding IDRs and two predictors of the protein‐binding IDRs can be considered as ligand‐type‐specific. We also discussed several potential future directions that would move this field forward by producing more accurate methods that target the prediction of binding residues, reduce cross‐predictions, and cover a broader range of ligand types. 
    more » « less
  3. Abstract Current predictors of DNA-binding residues (DBRs) from protein sequences belong to two distinct groups, those trained on binding annotations extracted from structured protein-DNA complexes (structure-trained) vs. intrinsically disordered proteins (disorder-trained). We complete the first empirical analysis of predictive performance across the structure- and disorder-annotated proteins for a representative collection of ten predictors. Majority of the structure-trained tools perform well on the structure-annotated proteins while doing relatively poorly on the disorder-annotated proteins, and vice versa. Several methods make accurate predictions for the structure-annotated proteins or the disorder-annotated proteins, but none performs highly accurately for both annotation types. Moreover, most predictors make excessive cross-predictions for the disorder-annotated proteins, where residues that interact with non-DNA ligand types are predicted as DBRs. Motivated by these results, we design, validate and deploy an innovative meta-model, hybridDBRpred, that uses deep transformer network to combine predictions generated by three best current predictors. HybridDBRpred provides accurate predictions and low levels of cross-predictions across the two annotation types, and is statistically more accurate than each of the ten tools and baseline meta-predictors that rely on averaging and logistic regression. We deploy hybridDBRpred as a convenient web server at http://biomine.cs.vcu.edu/servers/hybridDBRpred/ and provide the corresponding source code at https://github.com/jianzhang-xynu/hybridDBRpred. 
    more » « less
  4. Disordered linkers (DLs) are intrinsically disordered regions that facilitate movement between adjacent functional regions/domains, contributing to many key cellular functions. The recently completed second Critical Assessments of protein Intrinsic Disorder prediction (CAID2) experiment evaluated DL predictions by considering a rather narrow scenario when predicting 40 proteins that are already known to have DLs. We expand this evaluation by using a much larger set of nearly 350 test proteins from CAID2 and by investigating three distinct scenarios: (1) prediction residues in DLs vs. in non-DL regions (typical use of DL predictors); (2) prediction of residues in DLs vs. other disordered residues (to evaluate whether predictors can differentiate residues in DLs from other types of intrinsically disordered residues); and (3) prediction of proteins harboring DLs. We find that several methods provide relatively accurate predictions of DLs in the first scenario. However, only one method, APOD, accurately identifies DLs among other types of disordered residues (scenario 2) and predicts proteins harboring DLs (scenario 3). We also find that APOD’s predictive performance is modest, motivating further research into the development of new and more accurate DL predictors. We note that these efforts will benefit from a growing amount of training data and the availability of sophisticated deep network models and emphasize that future methods should provide accurate results across the three scenarios. 
    more » « less
  5. Abstract We have developed an algorithm, ParSe, which accurately identifies from the primary sequence those protein regions likely to exhibit physiological phase separation behavior. Originally, ParSe was designed to test the hypothesis that, for flexible proteins, phase separation potential is correlated to hydrodynamic size. While our results were consistent with that idea, we also found that many different descriptors could successfully differentiate between three classes of protein regions: folded, intrinsically disordered, and phase‐separating intrinsically disordered. Consequently, numerous combinations of amino acid property scales can be used to make robust predictions of protein phase separation. Built from that finding, ParSe 2.0 uses an optimal set of property scales to predict domain‐level organization and compute a sequence‐based prediction of phase separation potential. The algorithm is fast enough to scan the whole of the human proteome in minutes on a single computer and is equally or more accurate than other published predictors in identifying proteins and regions within proteins that drive phase separation. Here, we describe a web application for ParSe 2.0 that may be accessed through a browser by visitinghttps://stevewhitten.github.io/Parse_v2_FASTAto quickly identify phase‐separating proteins within large sequence sets, or by visitinghttps://stevewhitten.github.io/Parse_v2_webto evaluate individual protein sequences. 
    more » « less