Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30697489›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2019

Prioritizing bona fide bacterial small RNAs with machine learning classifiers.

Erik J J Eppenhof, Lourdes Peña-Castillo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Applying a New REFINE Approach inFrontiers in microbiology · 2019
    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

2 authors.

Erik J J EppenhofDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen, Netherlands.
Lourdes Peña-CastilloDepartment of Biology, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St. John's, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bacterial small (sRNAs) are involved in the control of several cellular processes. Hundreds of putative sRNAs have been identified in many bacterial species through RNA sequencing. The existence of putative sRNAs is usually validated by Northern blot analysis. However, the large amount of novel putative sRNAs reported in the literature makes it impractical to validate each of them in the wet lab. In this work, we applied five machine learning approaches to construct twenty models to discriminate bona fide sRNAs from random genomic sequences in five bacterial species. Sequences were represented using seven features including free energy of their predicted secondary structure, their distances to the closest predicted promoter site and Rho-independent terminator, and their distance to the closest open reading frames (ORFs). To automatically calculate these features, we developed an sRNA Characterization Pipeline (sRNACharP). All seven features used in the classification task contributed positively to the performance of the predictive models. The best performing model obtained a median precision of 100% at 10% recall and of 64% at 40% recall across all five bacterial species, and it outperformed previous published approaches on two benchmark datasets in terms of precision and recall. Our results indicate that even though there is limited sRNA sequence conservation across different bacterial species, there are intrinsic features in the genomic context of sRNAs that are conserved across taxa. We show that these features are utilized by machine learning approaches to learn a species-independent model to prioritize bona fide bacterial sRNAs.

Indexed as

Bacterial small RNAsMachine learningMultispecies evaluationRandom forestsRNA characterizationsRNACharPsRNA predictionsRNA prioritizationsRNARanking

Identifiers

PMID30697489
PMCPMC6348098

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.