PMC

Graphical representation of the strongest double interaction effects found on the recovery of weak factor loadings and the ARE measure. (A) NxC interaction and RMSD (1F); (B) NxC interaction and RMSD (2F); (C) CxCO interaction and RMSD (2F); (D) NxC interaction and RMSD (3F); (E) CxCO interaction and RMSD (3F); (F) NxC interaction and ARE (1F); (G) NxC interaction and ARE (2F); (H) NxCO interaction and ARE (2F); (I) MxN interaction and ARE (2F); (J) NxC interaction and ARE (3F); (K) NxCO interaction and ARE (3F); (L) MxN interaction and ARE (3F).

Three representative cases of wPPIs. Case I: a weak protein–protein interaction found in a locally highly crowded manner. Case II: a weak domain–domain interaction, exemplified by A–B pair, as part of a tight multi-domain complex. Such weak binary domain–domain interaction may be undetectable by many conventional methods including deletion mapping, yeast-hybrid approach, immunoprecipitation, etc., but become apparent when the tertiary structure of the tight complex is challengingly determined. However, NMR may be able to pick this interaction at early stage of the characterization. Case III: a weak protein–protein interaction as a part of multi-protein complex. Similar to (II), a weak A–D pair may not be detectable in isolated manner by any conventional techniques except NMR

Power simulation results for continuous traits at the α level of 0.0001. Scenario 1 includes genetic main effects but no gene-BMI interaction effects; Scenario 2 includes genetic main effects and weak gene-BMI interaction effects; Scenario 3 includes both genetic main effects and gene-BMI interaction effects; Scenario 4 includes gene-BMI interaction effects and weak genetic main effects; Scenario 5 includes gene-BMI interaction effects but no genetic main effects.