Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29273005›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2017

CSmetaPred: a consensus method for prediction of catalytic residues.

Preeti Choudhary, Shailesh Kumar, Anand Kumar Bachhawat, Shashi Bhushan Pandit

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

4 authors.

Preeti ChoudharyDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Knowledge City, Sector 81, SAS Nagar, Manuali PO 140306, India.
Shailesh KumarDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Knowledge City, Sector 81, SAS Nagar, Manuali PO 140306, India.
Anand Kumar BachhawatDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Knowledge City, Sector 81, SAS Nagar, Manuali PO 140306, India.
Shashi Bhushan PanditDepartment of Biological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science Education and Research, Mohali, Knowledge City, Sector 81, SAS Nagar, Manuali PO 140306, India. shashibp@iisermohali.ac.in.

Funding

Ministry of Human Resource Development MHRD-14-0064
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge of catalytic residues can play an essential role in elucidating mechanistic details of an enzyme. However, experimental identification of catalytic residues is a tedious and time-consuming task, which can be expedited by computational predictions. Despite significant development in active-site prediction methods, one of the remaining issues is ranked positions of putative catalytic residues among all ranked residues. In order to improve ranking of catalytic residues and their prediction accuracy, we have developed a meta-approach based method CSmetaPred. In this approach, residues are ranked based on the mean of normalized residue scores derived from four well-known catalytic residue predictors. The mean residue score of CSmetaPred is combined with predicted pocket information to improve prediction performance in meta-predictor, CSmetaPred_poc.

resultsBoth meta-predictors are evaluated on two comprehensive benchmark datasets and three legacy datasets using Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) and Precision Recall (PR) curves. The visual and quantitative analysis of ROC and PR curves shows that meta-predictors outperform their constituent methods and CSmetaPred_poc is the best of evaluated methods. For instance, on CSAMAC dataset CSmetaPred_poc (CSmetaPred) achieves highest Mean Average Specificity (MAS), a scalar measure for ROC curve, of 0.97 (0.96). Importantly, median predicted rank of catalytic residues is the lowest (best) for CSmetaPred_poc. Considering residues ranked ≤20 classified as true positive in binary classification, CSmetaPred_poc achieves prediction accuracy of 0.94 on CSAMAC dataset. Moreover, on the same dataset CSmetaPred_poc predicts all catalytic residues within top 20 ranks for ~73% of enzymes. Furthermore, benchmarking of prediction on comparative modelled structures showed that models result in better prediction than only sequence based predictions. These analyses suggest that CSmetaPred_poc is able to rank putative catalytic residues at lower (better) ranked positions, which can facilitate and expedite their experimental characterization.

conclusionsThe benchmarking studies showed that employing meta-approach in combining residue-level scores derived from well-known catalytic residue predictors can improve prediction accuracy as well as provide improved ranked positions of known catalytic residues. Hence, such predictions can assist experimentalist to prioritize residues for mutational studies in their efforts to characterize catalytic residues. Both meta-predictors are available as webserver at: http://14.139.227.206/csmetapred/ .

Indexed as

AlgorithmsConsensus SequenceAmino AcidsCatalysisCatalytic DomainComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinModels, MolecularROC CurveAmino AcidsActive site residuesCatalytic residue predictionMeta-approach

Identifiers

PMID29273005
PMCPMC5741869

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.