Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29506465›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018

Natural language processing in text mining for structural modeling of protein complexes.

Varsha D Badal, Petras J Kundrotas, Ilya A Vakser

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Challenges in protein docking.Current opinion in structural biology · 2020
    Review
  9. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Varsha D BadalCenter for Computational Biology and Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66047, USA.
Petras J KundrotasCenter for Computational Biology and Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66047, USA. pkundro@ku.edu.
Ilya A VakserCenter for Computational Biology and Department of Molecular Biosciences, The University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, 66047, USA. vakser@ku.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-5743-2934
University of Kansas · US

Funding

Integrated Resource for Protein Recognition StudiesR01GM074255 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI VAKSER, ILYA · 2005 to 2024
$6.2M
National Science Foundation DBI1262621National Science Foundation DBI1565107NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM074255NIH HHS R01GM074255
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundStructural modeling of protein-protein interactions produces a large number of putative configurations of the protein complexes. Identification of the near-native models among them is a serious challenge. Publicly available results of biomedical research may provide constraints on the binding mode, which can be essential for the docking. Our text-mining (TM) tool, which extracts binding site residues from the PubMed abstracts, was successfully applied to protein docking (Badal et al., PLoS Comput Biol, 2015; 11: e1004630). Still, many extracted residues were not relevant to the docking.

resultsWe present an extension of the TM tool, which utilizes natural language processing (NLP) for analyzing the context of the residue occurrence. The procedure was tested using generic and specialized dictionaries. The results showed that the keyword dictionaries designed for identification of protein interactions are not adequate for the TM prediction of the binding mode. However, our dictionary designed to distinguish keywords relevant to the protein binding sites led to considerable improvement in the TM performance. We investigated the utility of several methods of context analysis, based on dissection of the sentence parse trees. The machine learning-based NLP filtered the pool of the mined residues significantly more efficiently than the rule-based NLP. Constraints generated by NLP were tested in docking of unbound proteins from the DOCKGROUND X-ray benchmark set 4. The output of the global low-resolution docking scan was post-processed, separately, by constraints from the basic TM, constraints re-ranked by NLP, and the reference constraints. The quality of a match was assessed by the interface root-mean-square deviation. The results showed significant improvement of the docking output when using the constraints generated by the advanced TM with NLP.

conclusionsThe basic TM procedure for extracting protein-protein binding site residues from the PubMed abstracts was significantly advanced by the deep parsing (NLP techniques for contextual analysis) in purging of the initial pool of the extracted residues. Benchmarking showed a substantial increase of the docking success rate based on the constraints generated by the advanced TM with NLP.

Indexed as

Data MiningModels, MolecularNatural Language ProcessingMachine LearningProtein BindingProteinsSemanticsSupport Vector MachineProteinsBinding site predictionDependency parserProtein dockingProtein interactionsRule-based systemSupervised learning

Identifiers

PMID29506465
PMCPMC5838950
OpenAlexW2794764013

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.