Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30914676›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2019

NeuroPIpred: a tool to predict, design and scan insect neuropeptides.

Piyush Agrawal, Sumit Kumar, Archana Singh, Gajendra P S Raghava, Indrakant K Singh

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 58 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Interpretable molecular encodings and representations for machine learning tasks.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. CSM-peptides: A computational approach to rapid identification of therapeutic peptides.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2022
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Piyush AgrawalDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla Phase 3, New Delhi, 110020, India.
Sumit KumarMolecular Biology Research Lab, Department of Zoology, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 110019, India.
Archana SinghDepartment of Botany, Hans Raj College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 110007, India.
Gajendra P S RaghavaDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla Phase 3, New Delhi, 110020, India. raghava@iiitd.ac.in.ORCID 0000-0002-8902-2876
Indrakant K SinghMolecular Biology Research Lab, Department of Zoology, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, 110019, India. iksingh@db.du.ac.in.ORCID 0000-0002-3211-8471
University of Delhi · INIndraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Insect neuropeptides and their associated receptors have been one of the potential targets for the pest control. The present study describes in silico models developed using natural and modified insect neuropeptides for predicting and designing new neuropeptides. Amino acid composition analysis revealed the preference of residues C, D, E, F, G, N, S, and Y in insect neuropeptides The positional residue preference analysis show that in natural neuropeptides residues like A, N, F, D, P, S, and I are preferred at N terminus and residues like L, R, P, F, N, and G are preferred at C terminus. Prediction models were developed using input features like amino acid and dipeptide composition, binary profiles and implementing different machine learning techniques. Dipeptide composition based SVM model performed best among all the models. In case of NeuroPIpred_DS1, model achieved an accuracy of 86.50% accuracy and 0.73 MCC on training dataset and 83.71% accuracy and 0.67 MCC on validation dataset whereas in case of NeuroPIpred_DS2, model achieved 97.47% accuracy and 0.95 MCC on training dataset and 97.93% accuracy and 0.96 MCC on validation dataset. In order to assist researchers, we created standalone and user friendly web server NeuroPIpred, available at ( https://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/neuropipred .).

Indexed as

Databases, ProteinSequence Analysis, ProteinSoftwareSupport Vector MachineAmino Acid SequenceAnimalsHumansNeuropeptidesNeuropeptides

Identifiers

PMID30914676
PMCPMC6435694
OpenAlexW2922561803

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.