ArticleJournal of cheminformatics2013
Benchmarking of protein descriptor sets in proteochemometric modeling (part 2): modeling performance of 13 amino acid descriptor sets.
Article in Journal of cheminformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 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
38 citing papers in PubMed.
- Musical Peptide: Fragmentation of Musical Protein for AI-driven Bioactive Peptide Discovery Based on a New DeepPepQSAR Pipeline.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2026Article
- DeepPepQSAR: all-in-one for comprehensively exploiting the vast molecular diversity space of bioactive peptide universe.Molecular diversity · 2026Article
- Data-efficient protein mutational effect prediction with weak supervision by molecular simulation and protein language models.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- ProteoMutaMetrics: machine learning approaches for solute carrier family 6 mutation pathogenicity prediction.RSC advances · 2024Article
- TCR-H: explainable machine learning prediction of T-cell receptor epitope binding on unseen datasets.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Intelligent Protein Design and Molecular Characterization Techniques: A Comprehensive Review.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- 3DDPDs: describing protein dynamics for proteochemometric bioactivity prediction. A case for (mutant) G protein-coupled receptors.Journal of cheminformatics · 2023Article
- Molecular de-extinction of ancient antimicrobial peptides enabled by machine learning.Cell host & microbe · 2023Article
- Accelerating the Screening of Small Peptide Ligands by Combining Peptide-Protein Docking and Machine Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
- CalcAMP: A New Machine Learning Model for the Accurate Prediction of Antimicrobial Activity of Peptides.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Proteochemometric Modeling Identifies Chemically Diverse Norepinephrine Transporter Inhibitors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2023Article
- PSnpBind-ML: predicting the effect of binding site mutations on protein-ligand binding affinity.Journal of cheminformatics · 2023Article
- How to approach machine learning-based prediction of drug/compound-target interactions.Journal of cheminformatics · 2023Article
- Machine learning and comparative genomics approaches for the discovery of xylose transporters in yeast.Biotechnology for biofuels and bioproducts · 2022Article
- GNIFdb: a neoantigen intrinsic feature database for glioma.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2022Article
- Sequence-based prediction of protein binding regions and drug-target interactions.Journal of cheminformatics · 2022Article
- Molecular Mingling: Multimodal Predictions of Ligand Promiscuity in Pentameric Ligand-Gated Ion Channels.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2022Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Drug Design: Opportunities and Challenges.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Review
- Antigenicity prediction and vaccine recommendation of human influenza virus A (H3N2) using convolutional neural networks.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2020Article
- Successive Statistical and Structure-Based Modeling to Identify Chemically Novel Kinase Inhibitors.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWhile a large body of work exists on comparing and benchmarking descriptors of molecular structures, a similar comparison of protein descriptor sets is lacking. Hence, in the current work a total of 13 amino acid descriptor sets have been benchmarked with respect to their ability of establishing bioactivity models. The descriptor sets included in the study are Z-scales (3 variants), VHSE, T-scales, ST-scales, MS-WHIM, FASGAI, BLOSUM, a novel protein descriptor set (termed ProtFP (4 variants)), and in addition we created and benchmarked three pairs of descriptor combinations. Prediction performance was evaluated in seven structure-activity benchmarks which comprise Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) dipeptidic inhibitor data, and three proteochemometric data sets, namely (1) GPCR ligands modeled against a GPCR panel, (2) enzyme inhibitors (NNRTIs) with associated bioactivities against a set of HIV enzyme mutants, and (3) enzyme inhibitors (PIs) with associated bioactivities on a large set of HIV enzyme mutants.
resultsThe amino acid descriptor sets compared here show similar performance (<0.1 log units RMSE difference and <0.1 difference in MCC), while errors for individual proteins were in some cases found to be larger than those resulting from descriptor set differences ( > 0.3 log units RMSE difference and >0.7 difference in MCC). Combining different descriptor sets generally leads to better modeling performance than utilizing individual sets. The best performers were Z-scales (3) combined with ProtFP (Feature), or Z-Scales (3) combined with an average Z-Scale value for each target, while ProtFP (PCA8), ST-Scales, and ProtFP (Feature) rank last.
conclusionsWhile amino acid descriptor sets capture different aspects of amino acids their ability to be used for bioactivity modeling is still - on average - surprisingly similar. Still, combining sets describing complementary information consistently leads to small but consistent improvement in modeling performance (average MCC 0.01 better, average RMSE 0.01 log units lower). Finally, performance differences exist between the targets compared thereby underlining that choosing an appropriate descriptor set is of fundamental for bioactivity modeling, both from the ligand- as well as the protein side.
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.