Sign in
BioinformaticsbioRxiv
Preprint

FlyPredictome: A structural atlas of predicted protein-protein interactions in Drosophila

Ah‐Ram KimiD, Aram ComjeaniD, Austin Veal, Jonathan RodigeriD, Myeonghoon HaniD, Yanhui HuiD, Norbert PerrimoniD

Abstract

Protein-protein interactions (PPIs) are fundamental to cellular function. Yet most Drosophila PPIs remain structurally uncharacterized despite the wealth of genetic and biochemical data available for this organism. Here we present FlyPredictome, a structural interactome based on 1.5 million pairwise AlphaFold-Multimer predictions. Using a local confidence metric performing robustly on interactions involving flexible and disordered proteins, we systematically assess experimentally reported Drosophila PPIs and predict direct binding interfaces at residue-level resolution. Testing their functional relevance, we find that phenotype-associated missense mutations are enriched at predicted interaction interfaces. Building on these predictions, we construct an evidence-supported PPI network, revealing modular organization from signaling pathways to individual protein complexes. We further predict higher-order complexes for nearly 400 of these modules with AlphaFold3, matching available cryo-EM structures and extending to unresolved assemblies. Fly-Predictome is available as an open, interactive database that maps interactions to residue-level binding surfaces, providing a structural foundation for interaction discovery in Drosophila.

02 /Specification & Classification

Click any tag to browse matching papers

In-depth summary

✦ Multi-agent verified full-text synthesis

Claude Opus 5.5 · max effort · 8 Nov 2026 · from the full text of version 4 (18 Aug 2026) · CC BY 4.0

FlyPredictome scores 1.5 million AlphaFold-Multimer predictions of Drosophila protein pairs with a contact-aware integrated Local Interaction Score (iLIS), yielding residue-level interfaces enriched for phenotype-associated missense alleles.

Fly genetics defines pathway relationships, and yeast two-hybrid and affinity purification-mass spectrometry (AP-MS) screens catalog physical protein-protein interactions (PPIs), yet neither reveals binding interfaces, and structural coverage of the Drosophila interactome is sparse. FlyPredictome adds residue-level structural models at proteome scale, scored by a local metric that retains interactions of flexible or disordered proteins missed by the global ipTM score.

Key results

  1. ShownLocal interface metrics, iLIS included, outperformed ipTM and pDockQ in every pLDDT stratum; iLIS rescued 47 reference pairs that ipTM missed at matched specificity, tracked DockQ on post-cutoff complexes, and admitted non-contacting subunit pairs about three times less often than ipSAE or ipTM.

    Benchmark of 736 positive vs 5,909 control pairs. On 536 complexes deposited after the AlphaFold-Multimer training cutoff, iLIS vs DockQ Spearman ρ = 0.74 (Pearson r = 0.77); ρ = 0.62 (P = 3 × 10^-8) for 65 with < 30% identity to pre-cutoff PDB chains. At 10% false positive rate (FPR), non-contacting assembly subunit pairs passed iLIS 17% vs ipSAE 53%, ipTM 48%. · iLIS: a local confidence metric for identifying…; Prediction of higher-order protein complexes…; Benchmark dataset construction; Figure legends

  2. ShownPhenotype-associated missense alleles concentrate at residues repeatedly used in predicted interfaces, with enrichment surviving controls for gene-level ascertainment, burial and conservation and seen in every severity class; curated phosphosites are also enriched at direct contacts.

    2,761 mutations in 995 proteins: rate rose from 0.11% (residues never in an interface domain) to 0.69% (top quartile), 6.3-fold; within domains, 0.40% to 0.83% across contact bins, 2.1-fold (within-gene permutation P < 10^-5 for both); burial-adjusted odds ratio 2.6 (P < 10^-100); PhyloP-adjusted P = 10^-59; phosphosites 37.1% vs 26.4% for matched Ser/Thr/Tyr at contacts. · Phenotype-associated alleles are enriched at…; Missense allele enrichment analysis; Phenotype severity and post-translational…

  3. ShownLiterature- or interolog-supported positives form a network whose Leiden clusters and nested sub-clusters show distinct Gene Ontology enrichment and resolve Hippo, autophagy and double-strand break repair pathways into individual complexes, placing uncharacterized CG3448 beside DNA ligase IV.

    1,108,443 unique pairs (~1.1% of possible fly pairs); 144,796 heterodimers and 5,470 homodimers positive at iLIS ≥ 0.223; heterodimers: 15,386 fly-literature, 28,270 interolog (DIOPT ortholog score ≥ 2), 101,140 neither. Network (DIOPT ≥ 4): 5,224 proteins, 21,657 PPIs, 31 clusters, 257 sub-clusters, 407 sub-sub-clusters; CG3448-DNAlig4 iLIS = 0.448. · FlyPredictome database and evidence-supported…; Prediction-set composition; PPI network construction and clustering

  4. ShownCo-folding sub-cluster members with AlphaFold3 largely reproduced deposited cryo-EM assemblies, with completeness declining as subunit and contact numbers grew, and proposed explicit interfaces for structurally unresolved partners (Misato inside the CCT/TRiC chaperonin cavity, CG12725 on eIF3).

    398 assemblies folded; of 202 with an evaluable cryo-EM reference, 178 (88%) recovered every deposited subunit contact (median recall 1.00), from 98% for three-subunit to 75% for eleven-or-more-subunit assemblies; origin recognition complex vs Drosophila cryo-EM (PDB 7JGR): 1.43 Å Cα RMSD, TM-score 0.959. · Prediction of higher-order protein complexes…; Higher-order complex modeling; Figure legends

  5. ShownPositive rates for reported fly PPIs rose with the directness and replication of experimental support, iLIS gained most over ipTM in low-pLDDT pairs, and iLIS rescoring of an independent human predictome recovered nearly all high-confidence SPOC calls.

    Positive at iLIS ≥ 0.223: ~20% FlyBi (yeast two-hybrid), 16% DPiM and 10% DPiM2 (AP-MS), ~30% literature-curated pairs; 68 to 81% for direct-binding and structural assays (ELISA, SPR, X-ray, ITC); 17% (single record) to 75% (≥ 10 records); pLDDT 0 to 50: 22.7% iLIS vs 9.2% ipTM. Human predictome (1,614,047 pairs): 99.5% (16,479 of 16,557) of SPOC ≥ 0.86 calls recovered. · Benchmarking iLIS across experimental and…; Comparison with computational PPI prediction…; Experimental-evidence stratification; Figure legends

Methods, data and reproducibility

Protein pairs were modeled with AlphaFold-Multimer v.2.3.1 (LocalColabFold) and scored by iLIS, the geometric mean of predicted aligned error (PAE ≤ 12 Å) interface confidence and its Cβ-Cβ ≤ 8 Å contact-restricted form, called at a 10% false positive rate; supported positives were Leiden-clustered and selected modules co-folded with AlphaFold3.

  • Pairwise AlphaFold-Multimer models of fly protein pairs from reported PPIs, kinase interactome, ligand-receptor extracellular domain pairs and homodimer sets · Drosophila melanogaster · n = 1.5 million predictions; 1,108,443 unique pairs
  • Yeast two-hybrid positive reference sets (yeast, fly, human) and Eukaryotic Linear Motif structure-validated pairs vs random-reference, GFP, Wingless and shuffled controls · yeast, fly and human · n = 736 positives, 5,909 controls; 357/1,255 used for calibration
  • Time-split heterodimers deposited in the PDB after the 2021-09-30 AlphaFold-Multimer training cutoff, scored by DockQ against experimental structures · n = 536 complexes (65 with < 30% identity to pre-cutoff chains)
  • Fly experimental PPIs: FlyBi yeast two-hybrid, DPiM and DPiM2 AP-MS screens, plus FlyBase (MITAB fb_2024_02), BioGRID and MIST curated records · Drosophila melanogaster · n = FlyBi 8,773; DPiM 10,103; DPiM2 21,166 pairs
  • Schmid et al. (2025) human AlphaFold-Multimer predictome with SPOC scores, rescored with iLIS and linked to fly pairs through DIOPT orthology · human · n = 1,614,047 pairs
  • Peng and Zhao (2026) Drosophila AlphaFold-Multimer predictions for STRING ≥ 0.9 pairs, with pDockQ-based tiers · Drosophila melanogaster · n = 27,683 unique pairs · 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1013899.s011
  • FlyBase missense alleles (allele descriptions and genetic interaction records, fb_2025_05) mapped to model residues, plus UniProt/Swiss-Prot phosphosites · Drosophila melanogaster · n = 2,761 mutations in 995 proteins; 638 phosphosites
  • Experimental references: cryo-EM structures for AlphaFold3 assemblies (found via orthologs) and structures compared with pairwise Fz-Dsh and Sce-Su(z)2 models · Drosophila models; references from human, yeast, mouse and fly · n = 398 assemblies; 202 with an evaluable cryo-EM reference · PDB: 7JGR, 7LUM, 28ZX, 8WM9, 2CKL, 2H0D
Methods & tools
LocalColabFold v.1.5.5 with AlphaFold-Multimer v.2.3.1, colabfold_search MSAs against UniRef30 (version 2202), AlphaFold3 via the AlphaFold Server, iLIS, LIS and cLIS scoring (AFM-LIS pipeline), Comparator metrics: ipTM, ipSAE, actifpTM, pDockQ, pDockQ2, SPOC, DockQ v2 and BLASTp (time-split benchmark), Leiden community detection (leidenalg), DIOPT orthology, PhyloP scores from the UCSC 27-way insect alignment, Cochran-Armitage trend test with within-gene permutation, UCSF ChimeraX matchmaker and US-align, LIVIA with the clustered Local Interaction Profiler (cLIP)
Software & environment
LocalColabFold v.1.5.5 (AlphaFold-Multimer v.2.3.1); MSAs via colabfold_search on UniRef30 version 2202; five models and five recycles per pair; leidenalg (resolution = 1.1, seed = 42); DockQ v2; FlyBase fb_2025_05; site on Symfony/PHP/MySQL LAMP stack.
Assay conditions & compute
Harvard O2 and Longwood high-performance computing clusters with mixed NVIDIA GPUs (TeslaV100, RTX6000, RTX8000, A40, A100, A6000, L40S, H100); runtime and memory not reported.
Reproducibility gaps
Code links cover iLIS scoring (AFM-LIS) and the LIVIA viewer only; scripts for allele enrichment, network clustering and AlphaFold3 assembly scoring are not stated as released.
Limitations (6)
  • Coverage is targeted rather than all-by-all (about 1.1% of possible fly protein pairs), and the network keeps only literature- or interolog-backed edges, so pathways with sparse experimental PPI data are underrepresented and few-edge module assignments are tentative. · stated by the authors
  • Pairwise models ignore post-translational modifications, cofactors and compartmentalization, and iLIS by design scores near zero for partner-bridged associations or interfaces lying wholly outside the PAE ≤ 12 Å window; structurally compatible pairs may not co-occur in vivo. · stated by the authors
  • Cutoffs were calibrated by false positive rate on 357 positive and 1,255 negative benchmark pairs; at iLIS ≥ 0.223 the implied false discovery rate is 93% when true interactions are 1% of scored pairs, and the 0.1% tier would need a larger negative set. · stated by the authors
  • AlphaFold3 contact recovery is slightly overestimated, as the most divergent complexes are least likely to have a scorable reference; FPR cutoffs from AlphaFold-Multimer only approximate AlphaFold3 behavior; Misato and CG12725 placements remain untested hypotheses. · stated by the authors
  • For large sub-clusters the submitted subunits were chosen from the reference cryo-EM structure, and variants were kept only if they folded into one connected complex; both choices may inflate the 88% complete-contact recovery. · noted in this summary
  • No new experiments test the 101,140 positives lacking literature or interolog support, so their true-positive rate, which depends on unknown interaction prevalence, is unestablished; validation relies on retrospective datasets, allele records and published structures. · noted in this summary

Who should read:Read this if you study Drosophila signaling or protein complexes and want residue-level AlphaFold interface models, a contact-aware score for interactions of flexible or disordered proteins, or candidate partners to test genetically.

Reproducibility ledger

Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.

Sign in to file a reproducibility report.

Similarity Map
SelectedSame fieldCross-field
THISPeng '26Tang '23Xiong '25Kim '24Goodwin '25Schmid '25
77% semantic matchGenomics
Junhui Peng, Li Zhao·PLoS Computational Biology·Jan 22, 2026· 5 citations