Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27530612›Full record

ArticleMolecular genetics and genomics : MGG2016

Identification of compound-protein interactions through the analysis of gene ontology, KEGG enrichment for proteins and molecular fragments of compounds.

Lei Chen, Yu-Hang Zhang, Mingyue Zheng, Tao Huang, Yu-Dong Cai

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. A review on machine learning approaches and trends in drug discovery.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Classification of Widely and Rarely Expressed Genes with Recurrent Neural Network.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2019
    Article
  15. Tissue Expression Difference between mRNAs and lncRNAs.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Lei ChenCollege of Information Engineering, Shanghai Maritime University, Shanghai, 201306, People's Republic of China. chen_lei1@163.com.
Yu-Hang ZhangInstitute of Health Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Mingyue ZhengDrug Discovery and Design Center, Shanghai Institute of Materia Medica, Shanghai, 201203, People's Republic of China.
Tao HuangInstitute of Health Sciences, Shanghai Institutes for Biological Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Shanghai, 200031, People's Republic of China.
Yu-Dong CaiSchool of Life Sciences, Shanghai University, Shanghai, 200444, People's Republic of China. cai_yud@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Compound-protein interactions play important roles in every cell via the recognition and regulation of specific functional proteins. The correct identification of compound-protein interactions can lead to a good comprehension of this complicated system and provide useful input for the investigation of various attributes of compounds and proteins. In this study, we attempted to understand this system by extracting properties from both proteins and compounds, in which proteins were represented by gene ontology and KEGG pathway enrichment scores and compounds were represented by molecular fragments. Advanced feature selection methods, including minimum redundancy maximum relevance, incremental feature selection, and the basic machine learning algorithm random forest, were used to analyze these properties and extract core factors for the determination of actual compound-protein interactions. Compound-protein interactions reported in The Binding Databases were used as positive samples. To improve the reliability of the results, the analytic procedure was executed five times using different negative samples. Simultaneously, five optimal prediction methods based on a random forest and yielding maximum MCCs of approximately 77.55 % were constructed and may be useful tools for the prediction of compound-protein interactions. This work provides new clues to understanding the system of compound-protein interactions by analyzing extracted core features. Our results indicate that compound-protein interactions are related to biological processes involving immune, developmental and hormone-associated pathways.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, GeneticGene OntologyProteinsSmall Molecule LibrariesProteinsSmall Molecule LibrariesCompound–protein interactionGene ontology enrichmentIncremental feature selectionKEGG enrichmentMinimum redundancy maximum relevance

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.