Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24466248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2014

Training set selection for the prediction of essential genes.

Jian Cheng, Zhao Xu, Wenwu Wu, Li Zhao, Xiangchen Li, Yanlin Liu, Shiheng Tao

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 27% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jian ChengCollege of Life Sciences and State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China ; Bioinformatics Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Zhao XuCollege of Science, Northwest A&F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China.
Wenwu WuBioinformatics Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China ; Key Laboratory of Food Safety Research, Institute for Nutritional Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, China.
Li ZhaoCollege of Life Sciences and State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China ; Bioinformatics Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Xiangchen LiCollege of Life Sciences and State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China ; Bioinformatics Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Yanlin LiuCollege of Wine, Northwest A&F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China.
Shiheng TaoCollege of Life Sciences and State Key Laboratory of Crop Stress Biology in Arid Areas, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China ; Bioinformatics Center, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China.
Northwest A&F University · CNUniversity of Chinese Academy of Sciences · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Various computational models have been developed to transfer annotations of gene essentiality between organisms. However, despite the increasing number of microorganisms with well-characterized sets of essential genes, selection of appropriate training sets for predicting the essential genes of poorly-studied or newly sequenced organisms remains challenging. In this study, a machine learning approach was applied reciprocally to predict the essential genes in 21 microorganisms. Results showed that training set selection greatly influenced predictive accuracy. We determined four criteria for training set selection: (1) essential genes in the selected training set should be reliable; (2) the growth conditions in which essential genes are defined should be consistent in training and prediction sets; (3) species used as training set should be closely related to the target organism; and (4) organisms used as training and prediction sets should exhibit similar phenotypes or lifestyles. We then analyzed the performance of an incomplete training set and an integrated training set with multiple organisms. We found that the size of the training set should be at least 10% of the total genes to yield accurate predictions. Additionally, the integrated training sets exhibited remarkable increase in stability and accuracy compared with single sets. Finally, we compared the performance of the integrated training sets with the four criteria and with random selection. The results revealed that a rational selection of training sets based on our criteria yields better performance than random selection. Thus, our results provide empirical guidance on training set selection for the identification of essential genes on a genome-wide scale.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsModels, GeneticArtificial IntelligenceComputational BiologyGenes, EssentialMolecular Sequence AnnotationPhylogenySpecies Specificity

Identifiers

PMID24466248
PMCPMC3899339
OpenAlexW2048386825

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.