ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2011
Predicting antitumor activity of peptides by consensus of regression models trained on a small data sample.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine-Learning-Guided Peptide Drug Discovery: Development of GLP-1 Receptor Agonists with Improved Drug Properties.Journal of medicinal chemistry · 2024Article
- In Silico Rational Design and Virtual Screening of Bioactive Peptides Based on QSAR Modeling.ACS omega · 2020Article
- Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationship Study of Antioxidant Tripeptides Based on Model Population Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Prediction of hepatitis C virus interferon/ribavirin therapy outcome based on viral nucleotide attributes using machine learning algorithms.BMC research notes · 2014Article
- Understanding the undelaying mechanism of HA-subtyping in the level of physic-chemical characteristics of protein.PloS one · 2014Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Predicting antitumor activity of compounds using regression models trained on a small number of compounds with measured biological activity is an ill-posed inverse problem. Yet, it occurs very often within the academic community. To counteract, up to some extent, overfitting problems caused by a small training data, we propose to use consensus of six regression models for prediction of biological activity of virtual library of compounds. The QSAR descriptors of 22 compounds related to the opioid growth factor (OGF, Tyr-Gly-Gly-Phe-Met) with known antitumor activity were used to train regression models: the feed-forward artificial neural network, the k-nearest neighbor, sparseness constrained linear regression, the linear and nonlinear (with polynomial and Gaussian kernel) support vector machine. Regression models were applied on a virtual library of 429 compounds that resulted in six lists with candidate compounds ranked by predicted antitumor activity. The highly ranked candidate compounds were synthesized, characterized and tested for an antiproliferative activity. Some of prepared peptides showed more pronounced activity compared with the native OGF; however, they were less active than highly ranked compounds selected previously by the radial basis function support vector machine (RBF SVM) regression model. The ill-posedness of the related inverse problem causes unstable behavior of trained regression models on test data. These results point to high complexity of prediction based on the regression models trained on a small data sample.
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.