Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30802694›Full record

ArticleComputers in biology and medicine2019

AntiVPP 1.0: A portable tool for prediction of antiviral peptides.

Jorge Félix Beltrán Lissabet, Lisandra Herrera Belén, Jorge G Farias

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Computers in biology and medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 28 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
28citing 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

28 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. VirVACPRED: A Web Server for Prediction of Protective Viral Antigens.International journal of peptide research and therapeutics · 2022
    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.

Jorge Félix Beltrán LissabetUniversidad de La Frontera, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Temuco, Chile.
Lisandra Herrera BelénUniversidad de La Frontera, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Temuco, Chile.
Jorge G FariasUniversidad de La Frontera, Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Science, Temuco, Chile. Electronic address: jorge.farias@ufrontera.cl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Viruses are worldwide pathogens with a high impact on the human population. Despite the constant efforts to fight viral infections, there is a need to discover and design new drug candidates. Antiviral peptides are molecules with confirmed activity and constitute excellent alternatives for the treatment of viral infections. In the present study, we developed AntiVPP 1.0, an accurate bioinformatic tool that uses the Random Forest algorithm for antiviral peptide predictions. The model of AntiVPP 1.0 for antiviral peptide predictions uses several features of 1088 peptides for training and validation. During the validation of the model we achieved the TPR = 0.87, SPC = 0.97, ACC = 0.93 and MCC = 0.87 performance measures, which were indicative of a robust model. AntiVPP 1.0 is a fast, accurate and intuitive software focused on the assessment of antiviral peptides candidates. AntiVPP 1.0 is available at https://github.com/bio-coding/AntiVPP.

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsMachine LearningPeptidesSoftwareAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinDecision TreesUser-Computer InterfaceAntiviral AgentsPeptidesAntiviralMachine learningPeptidePredictionPythonSoftware

Identifiers

PMID30802694
PMCPMC7094449

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.