ArticleBMC bioinformatics2012
Protein-RNA interface residue prediction using machine learning: an assessment of the state of the art.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 86 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Twenty years of advances in prediction of nucleic acid-binding residues in protein sequences.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Review
- Structure-based prediction of protein-nucleic acid binding using graph neural networks.Biophysical reviews · 2024Review
- HybridRNAbind: prediction of RNA interacting residues across structure-annotated and disorder-annotated proteins.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- qNABpredict: Quick, accurate, and taxonomy-aware sequence-based prediction of content of nucleic acid binding amino acids.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2023Article
- Machine learning for small interfering RNAs: a concise review of recent developments.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Review
- PRIP: A Protein-RNA Interface Predictor Based on Semantics of Sequences.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A comparative analysis of machine learning classifiers for predicting protein-binding nucleotides in RNA sequences.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- iLearnPlus: a comprehensive and automated machine-learning platform for nucleic acid and protein sequence analysis, prediction and visualization.Nucleic acids research · 2021Article
- Comprehensive Survey and Comparative Assessment of RNA-Binding Residue Predictions with Analysis by RNA Type.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Review
- A deep learning framework to predict binding preference of RNA constituents on protein surface.Nature communications · 2019Article
- Partner-specific prediction of RNA-binding residues in proteins: A critical assessment.Proteins · 2019Article
- Assessing the performance of MM/PBSA and MM/GBSA methods. 8. Predicting binding free energies and poses of protein-RNA complexes.RNA (New York, N.Y.) · 2018Article
- Deciphering RNA-Recognition Patterns of Intrinsically Disordered Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Article
- A boosting approach for prediction of protein-RNA binding residues.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- DRNApred, fast sequence-based method that accurately predicts and discriminates DNA- and RNA-binding residues.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- Exact p-values for pairwise comparison of Friedman rank sums, with application to comparing classifiers.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Sequence-Based Prediction of RNA-Binding Residues in Proteins.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2017Article
- Review
- Protein-RNA interactions: structural biology and computational modeling techniques.Biophysical reviews · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRNA molecules play diverse functional and structural roles in cells. They function as messengers for transferring genetic information from DNA to proteins, as the primary genetic material in many viruses, as catalysts (ribozymes) important for protein synthesis and RNA processing, and as essential and ubiquitous regulators of gene expression in living organisms. Many of these functions depend on precisely orchestrated interactions between RNA molecules and specific proteins in cells. Understanding the molecular mechanisms by which proteins recognize and bind RNA is essential for comprehending the functional implications of these interactions, but the recognition 'code' that mediates interactions between proteins and RNA is not yet understood. Success in deciphering this code would dramatically impact the development of new therapeutic strategies for intervening in devastating diseases such as AIDS and cancer. Because of the high cost of experimental determination of protein-RNA interfaces, there is an increasing reliance on statistical machine learning methods for training predictors of RNA-binding residues in proteins. However, because of differences in the choice of datasets, performance measures, and data representations used, it has been difficult to obtain an accurate assessment of the current state of the art in protein-RNA interface prediction.
resultsWe provide a review of published approaches for predicting RNA-binding residues in proteins and a systematic comparison and critical assessment of protein-RNA interface residue predictors trained using these approaches on three carefully curated non-redundant datasets. We directly compare two widely used machine learning algorithms (Naïve Bayes (NB) and Support Vector Machine (SVM)) using three different data representations in which features are encoded using either sequence- or structure-based windows. Our results show that (i) Sequence-based classifiers that use a position-specific scoring matrix (PSSM)-based representation (PSSMSeq) outperform those that use an amino acid identity based representation (IDSeq) or a smoothed PSSM (SmoPSSMSeq); (ii) Structure-based classifiers that use smoothed PSSM representation (SmoPSSMStr) outperform those that use PSSM (PSSMStr) as well as sequence identity based representation (IDStr). PSSMSeq classifiers, when tested on an independent test set of 44 proteins, achieve performance that is comparable to that of three state-of-the-art structure-based predictors (including those that exploit geometric features) in terms of Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC), although the structure-based methods achieve substantially higher Specificity (albeit at the expense of Sensitivity) compared to sequence-based methods. We also find that the expected performance of the classifiers on a residue level can be markedly different from that on a protein level. Our experiments show that the classifiers trained on three different non-redundant protein-RNA interface datasets achieve comparable cross-validation performance. However, we find that the results are significantly affected by differences in the distance threshold used to define interface residues.
conclusionsOur results demonstrate that protein-RNA interface residue predictors that use a PSSM-based encoding of sequence windows outperform classifiers that use other encodings of sequence windows. While structure-based methods that exploit geometric features can yield significant increases in the Specificity of protein-RNA interface residue predictions, such increases are offset by decreases in Sensitivity. These results underscore the importance of comparing alternative methods using rigorous statistical procedures, multiple performance measures, and datasets that are constructed based on several alternative definitions of interface residues and redundancy cutoffs as well as including evaluations on independent test sets into the comparisons.
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.