Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30184176›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2019

Twenty years of bioinformatics research for protease-specific substrate and cleavage site prediction: a comprehensive revisit and benchmarking of existing methods.

Fuyi Li, Yanan Wang, Chen Li, Tatiana T Marquez-Lago, André Leier, Neil D Rawlings, Gholamreza Haffari, Jerico Revote, Tatsuya Akutsu, Kuo-Chen Chou and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed
6.1field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

38 citing papers in PubMed, 101 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Protein cleaver: an interactive web interface forFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. INTEDE 2.0: the metabolic roadmap of drugs.Nucleic acids research · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Predicting Structural Susceptibility of Proteins to Proteolytic Processing.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Approaches to Avoid Proteolysis During Protein Expression and Purification.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

18 authors at 8 institutions in 6 countries.

Fuyi LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Yanan WangBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Chen LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Tatiana T Marquez-LagoDepartment of Genetics and Department of Cell, Developmental and Integrative Biology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
André LeierDepartment of Genetics and Department of Cell, Developmental and Integrative Biology, School of Medicine, University of Alabama at Birmingham, AL, USA.
Neil D RawlingsEMBL European Bioinformatics Institute, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus, Wellcome Trust Genome Campus,Hinxton, Cambridgeshire CB10 1SD, UK.
Gholamreza HaffariMonash Centre for Data Science, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Jerico RevoteBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Tatsuya AkutsuBioinformatics Center, Institute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan.
Kuo-Chen ChouGordon Life Science Institute, Boston, MA 02478, USA.
Anthony W PurcellBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Robert N PikeLa Trobe Institute for Molecular Science, La Trobe University, Melbourne, VIC 3086, Australia.
Geoffrey I WebbMonash Centre for Data Science, Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
A Ian SmithBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Trevor LithgowBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Microbiology, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria 3800, Australia.
Roger J DalyBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
James C WhisstockBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Jiangning SongBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Australian Regenerative Medicine Institute · AUMonash University · AUUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham · USEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GBKyoto University · JPLa Trobe University · AUShanghai Jiao Tong University · CNUniversity of Electronic Science and Technology of China · CN

Funding

New Tricks for 'Old' Drugs: PK/PD of Polymyxin Nonantibiotic CombinationsR01AI111965 · NIAID · MONASH UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JIAN · 2014 to 2018
$4.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI111965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The roles of proteolytic cleavage have been intensively investigated and discussed during the past two decades. This irreversible chemical process has been frequently reported to influence a number of crucial biological processes (BPs), such as cell cycle, protein regulation and inflammation. A number of advanced studies have been published aiming at deciphering the mechanisms of proteolytic cleavage. Given its significance and the large number of functionally enriched substrates targeted by specific proteases, many computational approaches have been established for accurate prediction of protease-specific substrates and their cleavage sites. Consequently, there is an urgent need to systematically assess the state-of-the-art computational approaches for protease-specific cleavage site prediction to further advance the existing methodologies and to improve the prediction performance. With this goal in mind, in this article, we carefully evaluated a total of 19 computational methods (including 8 scoring function-based methods and 11 machine learning-based methods) in terms of their underlying algorithm, calculated features, performance evaluation and software usability. Then, extensive independent tests were performed to assess the robustness and scalability of the reviewed methods using our carefully prepared independent test data sets with 3641 cleavage sites (specific to 10 proteases). The comparative experimental results demonstrate that PROSPERous is the most accurate generic method for predicting eight protease-specific cleavage sites, while GPS-CCD and LabCaS outperformed other predictors for calpain-specific cleavage sites. Based on our review, we then outlined some potential ways to improve the prediction performance and ease the computational burden by applying ensemble learning, deep learning, positive unlabeled learning and parallel and distributed computing techniques. We anticipate that our study will serve as a practical and useful guide for interested readers to further advance next-generation bioinformatics tools for protease-specific cleavage site prediction.

Indexed as

BenchmarkingComputational BiologyResearchAlgorithmsMachine LearningPeptide HydrolasesSubstrate SpecificityPeptide Hydrolasesbioinformaticsmachine learningprediction modelproteasesequence analysissubstrate cleavagesubstrate specificity

Identifiers

PMID30184176
PMCPMC6954447
OpenAlexW2890951984

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.