Article3 Biotech2018
Classifying nitrilases as aliphatic and aromatic using machine learning technique.
Article in 3 Biotech, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Isolation and Characterization of a Nitrilase-Producing Geotrichum Strain and Optimization of the Fermentation Conditions.Current microbiology · 2025Article
- Conversion of aliphatic nitriles by the arylacetonitrilase from Pseudomonas fluorescens EBC191.World journal of microbiology & biotechnology · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ProCos (Protein Composition Server, script version), one of the machine learning techniques, was used to classify nitrilases as aliphatic and aromatic nitrilases. Some important feature vectors were used to train the algorithm, which included pseudo-amino acid composition (PAAC) and five-factor solution score (5FSS). This clearly differentiated into two groups of nitrilases, i.e., aliphatic and aromatic, achieving maximum sensitivity of 100.00%, specificity of 90.00%, accuracy of 95.00% and Mathew Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of about 0.90 for the pseudo-amino acid composition. On the other hand, five-factor solution score achieved a sensitivity of 96.00%, specificity of 84.00%, accuracy of 90.00% and Mathew Correlation Coefficient (MCC) of about 0.81. The total count of aliphatic amino acids, Ala (A), Gly (G), Leu (L), Ile (I), Val (V), Met (M) and Pro (P), was found to be higher, i.e., 42.7 in case of aliphatic nitrilases, whereas it was 40.1 in aromatic nitrilases. On the other hand, aromatic amino acids, Tyr (Y), Trp (W), His (H) and Phe (F) number, were found to be higher, i.e., 12.7 in aromatic nitrilases as compared to aliphatic nitrilases which was 10.7. This approach will help in predicting a nitrilase as aromatic or aliphatic nitrilase based on its amino acid sequence. Access to the scripts can be done logging onto GitHub using keyword 'Nitrilase' or 'https://github.com/rover2380/Nitrilase.git'.
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.