ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2012
A structure-based protocol for learning the family-specific mechanisms of membrane-binding domains.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Co-Evolution of Opioid and Adrenergic Ligands and Receptors: Shared, Complementary Modules Explain Evolution of Functional Interactions and Suggest Novel Engineering Possibilities.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Network-based prediction and knowledge mining of disease genes.BMC medical genomics · 2015Article
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
motivationPeripheral membrane-targeting domain (MTD) families, such as C1-, C2- and PH domains, play a key role in signal transduction and membrane trafficking by dynamically translocating their parent proteins to specific plasma membranes when changes in lipid composition occur. It is, however, difficult to determine the subset of domains within families displaying this property, as sequence motifs signifying the membrane binding properties are not well defined. For this reason, procedures based on sequence similarity alone are often insufficient in computational identification of MTDs within families (yielding less than 65% accuracy even with a sequence identity of 70%).
resultsWe present a machine learning protocol for determining membrane-targeting properties achieving 85-90% accuracy in separating binding and non-binding domains within families. Our model is based on features from both sequence and structure, thereby incorporation statistics obtained from the entire domain family and domain-specific physical quantities such as surface electrostatics. In addition, by using the enriched rules in alternating decision tree classifiers, we are able to determine the meaning of the assigned function labels in terms of biological mechanisms.
conclusionsThe high accuracy of the learned models and good agreement between the rules discovered using the ADtree classifier and mechanisms reported in the literature reflect the value of machine learning protocols in both prediction and biological knowledge discovery. Our protocol can thus potentially be used as a general function annotation and knowledge mining tool for other protein domains. AVAILABILITY: metador.bioengr.uic.edu CONTACT: huilu@uic.edu.
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.