Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24180526›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2013

A novel strategy for classifying the output from an in silico vaccine discovery pipeline for eukaryotic pathogens using machine learning algorithms.

Stephen J Goodswen, Paul J Kennedy, John T Ellis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Stephen J Goodswen
Paul J Kennedy
John T EllisSchool of Medical and Molecular Biosciences, ithree institute at the University of Technology Sydney (UTS), Sydney, Australia. John.Ellis@uts.edu.au.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAn in silico vaccine discovery pipeline for eukaryotic pathogens typically consists of several computational tools to predict protein characteristics. The aim of the in silico approach to discovering subunit vaccines is to use predicted characteristics to identify proteins which are worthy of laboratory investigation. A major challenge is that these predictions are inherent with hidden inaccuracies and contradictions. This study focuses on how to reduce the number of false candidates using machine learning algorithms rather than relying on expensive laboratory validation. Proteins from Toxoplasma gondii, Plasmodium sp., and Caenorhabditis elegans were used as training and test datasets.

resultsThe results show that machine learning algorithms can effectively distinguish expected true from expected false vaccine candidates (with an average sensitivity and specificity of 0.97 and 0.98 respectively), for proteins observed to induce immune responses experimentally.

conclusionsVaccine candidates from an in silico approach can only be truly validated in a laboratory. Given any in silico output and appropriate training data, the number of false candidates allocated for validation can be dramatically reduced using a pool of machine learning algorithms. This will ultimately save time and money in the laboratory.

Indexed as

Computer SimulationAlgorithmsAnimalsAntigensArtificial IntelligenceCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsComputational BiologyDrug DiscoveryProtozoan ProteinsSensitivity and SpecificityVaccinesAntigensCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsProtozoan ProteinsVaccines

Identifiers

PMID24180526
PMCPMC3826511

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.