ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2007
Learning to translate sequence and structure to function: identifying DNA binding and membrane binding proteins.
Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional Site Discovery From Incomplete Training Data: A Case Study With Nucleic Acid-Binding Proteins.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Heterodimer Binding Scaffolds Recognition via the Analysis of Kinetically Hot Residues.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018Article
- A structure-based protocol for learning the family-specific mechanisms of membrane-binding domains.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2012Article
- Structure-based prediction of DNA-binding proteins by structural alignment and a volume-fraction corrected DFIRE-based energy function.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2010Article
- Boosting the prediction and understanding of DNA-binding domains from sequence.Nucleic acids research · 2010Article
- Genome-wide sequence-based prediction of peripheral proteins using a novel semi-supervised learning technique.BMC bioinformatics · 2010Article
- Enzyme classification with peptide programs: a comparative study.BMC bioinformatics · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A protein's function depends in a large part on interactions with other molecules. With an increasing number of protein structures becoming available every year, a corresponding structural annotation approach identifying such interactions grows more expedient. At the same time, machine learning has gained popularity in bioinformatics providing robust annotation of genes and proteins without sequence homology. Here we have developed a general machine learning protocol to identify proteins that bind DNA and membrane. In general, there is no theory or even rule of thumb to pick the best machine learning algorithm. Thus, a systematic comparison of several classification algorithms known to perform well is investigated. Indeed, the boosted tree classifier is found to give the best performance, achieving 93% and 88% accuracy to discriminate non-homologous proteins that bind membrane and DNA, respectively, significantly outperforming all previously published works. We also attempted to address the importance of the attributes in function prediction and the relationships between relevant attributes. A graphical model based on boosted trees is applied to study the important features in discriminating DNA-binding proteins. In summary, the current protocol identified physical features important in DNA and membrane binding, rather than annotating function through sequence similarity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.