Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29590297›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2018

Deep learning improves antimicrobial peptide recognition.

Daniel Veltri, Uday Kamath, Amarda Shehu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 282 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
282citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

282 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

222 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Daniel VeltriBioinformatics and Computational Biosciences Branch, Office of Cyber Infrastructure and Computational Biology, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, U.S. National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD, USA.
Uday KamathDigital Reasoning, McLean, VA, USA.
Amarda ShehuDepartment of Computer Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Motivation: Bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a growing concern. Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), natural components of innate immunity, are popular targets for developing new drugs. Machine learning methods are now commonly adopted by wet-laboratory researchers to screen for promising candidates. Results: In this work, we utilize deep learning to recognize antimicrobial activity. We propose a neural network model with convolutional and recurrent layers that leverage primary sequence composition. Results show that the proposed model outperforms state-of-the-art classification models on a comprehensive dataset. By utilizing the embedding weights, we also present a reduced-alphabet representation and show that reasonable AMP recognition can be maintained using nine amino acid types. Availability and implementation: Models and datasets are made freely available through the Antimicrobial Peptide Scanner vr.2 web server at www.ampscanner.com. Supplementary information: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAnti-Infective AgentsComputational BiologyPeptidesSequence Analysis, ProteinAnti-Infective AgentsPeptides

Identifiers

PMID29590297
PMCPMC6084614

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.