ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018
Computational prediction of inter-species relationships through omics data analysis and machine learning.
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 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Precision phage therapy in the AI/ML era: a systematic review of discovery-to-clinical translation evidence.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Pooled it
- Exploring the potential of computer simulation models in drug testing and biomedical research: a systematic review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Advances in phage-host interaction prediction: in silico method enhances the development of phage therapies.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Pooled it
- Antimicrobial resistance crisis: could artificial intelligence be the solution?Military Medical Research · 2024Pooled it
- Research progress on nanomaterials in promoting phage function and application.Applied and environmental microbiology · 2026Review
- Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Bacteriophage Research: A New Chapter in Future Medicine.Microorganisms · 2026Review
- Bacteriophage therapy for multidrug-resistant bacterial infections: recent advances, clinical evidence, and translational challenges.Archives of microbiology · 2026Review
- High-resolution phage-host assignment through key proteins using large language models.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Accurate structure-activity relationship prediction of antioxidant peptides using a multimodal deep learning framework.Journal of cheminformatics · 2025Article
- PBIP: a deep learning framework for predicting phage-bacterium interactions at the strain level.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- A machine learning approach to predict strain-specific phage-host interactions.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- MoEPH: an adaptive fusion-based LLM for predicting phage-host interactions in health informatics.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Prediction of virus-host associations using protein language models and multiple instance learning.PLoS computational biology · 2024Article
- Review
- Prediction of Klebsiella phage-host specificity at the strain level.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Small Molecule Inhibitors against the Bacterial PathogenCurrent medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- iPHoP: An integrated machine learning framework to maximize host prediction for metagenome-derived viruses of archaea and bacteria.PLoS biology · 2023Article
- Bioinformatics approaches for unveiling virus-host interactions.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Review
- Differences in the microbiome of the small intestine of Leghorn lines divergently selected for antibody titer to sheep erythrocytes suggest roles for commensals in host humoral response.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Phage Therapy for Crops: Concepts, Experimental and Bioinformatics Approaches to Direct Its Application.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAntibiotic resistance and its rapid dissemination around the world threaten the efficacy of currently-used medical treatments and call for novel, innovative approaches to manage multi-drug resistant infections. Phage therapy, i.e., the use of viruses (phages) to specifically infect and kill bacteria during their life cycle, is one of the most promising alternatives to antibiotics. It is based on the correct matching between a target pathogenic bacteria and the therapeutic phage. Nevertheless, correctly matching them is a major challenge. Currently, there is no systematic method to efficiently predict whether phage-bacterium interactions exist and these pairs must be empirically tested in laboratory. Herein, we present our approach for developing a computational model able to predict whether a given phage-bacterium pair can interact based on their genome.
resultsBased on public data from GenBank and phagesDB.org, we collected more than a thousand positive phage-bacterium interactions with their complete genomes. In addition, we generated putative negative (i.e., non-interacting) pairs. We extracted, from the collected genomes, a set of informative features based on the distribution of predictive protein-protein interactions and on their primary structure (e.g. amino-acid frequency, molecular weight and chemical composition of each protein). With these features, we generated multiple candidate datasets to train our algorithms. On this base, we built predictive models exhibiting predictive performance of around 90% in terms of F1-score, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy, obtained on the test set with 10-fold cross-validation.
conclusionThese promising results reinforce the hypothesis that machine learning techniques may produce highly-predictive models accelerating the search of interacting phage-bacteria pairs.
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.