Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29316706›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2018

Assessing the Performances of Protein Function Prediction Algorithms from the Perspectives of Identification Accuracy and False Discovery Rate.

Chun Yan Yu, Xiao Xu Li, Hong Yang, Ying Hong Li, Wei Wei Xue, Yu Zong Chen, Lin Tao, Feng Zhu

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. iProEP: A Computational Predictor for Predicting Promoter.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2019
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Prediction of Signal Peptides in Proteins from Malaria Parasites.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  11. Prediction of GluN2B-CTMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2018
    Article
  12. Special Protein Molecules Computational Identification.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018
    Article
  13. Article
  14. 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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Chun Yan YuInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. yucy@cqu.edu.cn.
Xiao Xu LiInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. lixiaoxu@cqu.edu.cn.
Hong YangInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. yangh0921@cqu.edu.cn.
Ying Hong LiInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. liyh@cqu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0003-3629-519X
Wei Wei XueInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. xueww@cqu.edu.cn.
Yu Zong ChenBioinformatics and Drug Design Group, Department of Pharmacy, and Center for Computational Science and Engineering, National University of Singapore, Singapore 117543, Singapore. 20121802134@cqu.edu.cn.
Lin TaoSchool of Medicine, Hangzhou Normal University, Hangzhou 310012, China. linntaoo@hotmail.com.
Feng ZhuInnovative Drug Research and Bioinformatics Group, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Collaborative Innovation Center for Brain Science, Chongqing University, Chongqing 401331, China. zhufeng.ns@gmail.com.
Chongqing University · CNHangzhou Normal University · CNNational University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The function of a protein is of great interest in the cutting-edge research of biological mechanisms, disease development and drug/target discovery. Besides experimental explorations, a variety of computational methods have been designed to predict protein function. Among these in silico methods, the prediction of BLAST is based on protein sequence similarity, while that of machine learning is also based on the sequence, but without the consideration of their similarity. This unique characteristic of machine learning makes it a good complement to BLAST and many other approaches in predicting the function of remotely relevant proteins and the homologous proteins of distinct function. However, the identification accuracies of these in silico methods and their false discovery rate have not yet been assessed so far, which greatly limits the usage of these algorithms. Herein, a comprehensive comparison of the performances among four popular prediction algorithms (BLAST, SVM, PNN and KNN) was conducted. In particular, the performance of these methods was systematically assessed by four standard statistical indexes based on the independent test datasets of 93 functional protein families defined by UniProtKB keywords. Moreover, the false discovery rates of these algorithms were evaluated by scanning the genomes of four representative model organisms (

Indexed as

SoftwareMachine LearningProteomicsReproducibility of ResultsSequence Analysis, ProteinBLASTfalse discovery ratemachine learningprotein function predictionsupport vector machine

Identifiers

PMID29316706
PMCPMC5796132
OpenAlexW2769518858

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.