ArticlePloS one2014
Training set selection for the prediction of essential genes.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.
- Essential genes identification model based on sequence feature map and graph convolutional neural network.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Predicting and explaining the impact of genetic disruptions and interactions on organismal viability.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Article
- Biological network topology features predict gene dependencies in cancer cell-lines.Bioinformatics advances · 2022Article
- DELEAT: gene essentiality prediction and deletion design for bacterial genome reduction.BMC bioinformatics · 2021Article
- A Computational Framework Based on Ensemble Deep Neural Networks for Essential Genes Identification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020Article
- DeeplyEssential: a deep neural network for predicting essential genes in microbes.BMC bioinformatics · 2020Article
- Network Embedding the Protein-Protein Interaction Network for Human Essential Genes Identification.Genes · 2020Article
- DeepEP: a deep learning framework for identifying essential proteins.BMC bioinformatics · 2019Article
- Geptop 2.0: An Updated, More Precise, and Faster Geptop Server for Identification of Prokaryotic Essential Genes.Frontiers in microbiology · 2019Article
- Identifying mouse developmental essential genes using machine learning.Disease models & mechanisms · 2018Article
- Network-based features enable prediction of essential genes across diverse organisms.PloS one · 2018Article
- Sequence-based information-theoretic features for gene essentiality prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2017Article
- Predicting Essential Genes and Proteins Based on Machine Learning and Network Topological Features: A Comprehensive Review.Frontiers in physiology · 2016Review
- Rechecking the Centrality-Lethality Rule in the Scope of Protein Subcellular Localization Interaction Networks.PloS one · 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
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.