ArticlePlant physiology2010
Enhancement of plant metabolite fingerprinting by machine learning.
Article in Plant physiology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Metabolomics-Guided Elucidation of Plant Abiotic Stress Responses in the 4IR Era: An Overview.Metabolites · 2021Review
- Natural variation in wild tomato trichomes; selecting metabolites that contribute to insect resistance using a random forest approach.BMC plant biology · 2021Article
- You Are What You Eat: Application of Metabolomics Approaches to Advance Nutrition Research.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Predicting future biomass yield inGlobal change biology. Bioenergy · 2017Article
- Serum Metabonomics of Mild Acute Pancreatitis.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2016Article
- Plantmetabolomics.org: mass spectrometry-based Arabidopsis metabolomics--database and tools update.Nucleic acids research · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Metabolite fingerprinting of Arabidopsis (Arabidopsis thaliana) mutants with known or predicted metabolic lesions was performed by (1)H-nuclear magnetic resonance, Fourier transform infrared, and flow injection electrospray-mass spectrometry. Fingerprinting enabled processing of five times more plants than conventional chromatographic profiling and was competitive for discriminating mutants, other than those affected in only low-abundance metabolites. Despite their rapidity and complexity, fingerprints yielded metabolomic insights (e.g. that effects of single lesions were usually not confined to individual pathways). Among fingerprint techniques, (1)H-nuclear magnetic resonance discriminated the most mutant phenotypes from the wild type and Fourier transform infrared discriminated the fewest. To maximize information from fingerprints, data analysis was crucial. One-third of distinctive phenotypes might have been overlooked had data models been confined to principal component analysis score plots. Among several methods tested, machine learning (ML) algorithms, namely support vector machine or random forest (RF) classifiers, were unsurpassed for phenotype discrimination. Support vector machines were often the best performing classifiers, but RFs yielded some particularly informative measures. First, RFs estimated margins between mutant phenotypes, whose relations could then be visualized by Sammon mapping or hierarchical clustering. Second, RFs provided importance scores for the features within fingerprints that discriminated mutants. These scores correlated with analysis of variance F values (as did Kruskal-Wallis tests, true- and false-positive measures, mutual information, and the Relief feature selection algorithm). ML classifiers, as models trained on one data set to predict another, were ideal for focused metabolomic queries, such as the distinctiveness and consistency of mutant phenotypes. Accessible software for use of ML in plant physiology is highlighted.
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.