ArticleData in brief2020
A bacterial phyla dataset for protein function prediction.
Article in Data in brief, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PANDA2: protein function prediction using graph neural networks.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Review on the Computational Genome Annotation of Sequences Obtained by Next-Generation Sequencing.Biology · 2020Review
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
Protein function prediction has been the most worked upon and the most challenging problem for computational biologists. The vast majority of known proteins have yet not been characterised experimentally, and there is significant gap between their structures and functions. New un-annotated sequences are being added to the public protein databases (e.g. UniprotKB) at an enormous pace [1]. Such proteins with unknown functions might play key role in the metabolism, growth and development regulation. Thus, if functions of unknown proteins left undiscovered, researchers may skip important information(s). Based on their sequence, structure, evolutionary history, and their association with other proteins, tools of computational biology can provide insights into the function of proteins [2]. For proteins with well characterised close relatives, it is trivial to infer function. Orphan proteins without discernible sequence relatives present a greater challenge [3]. Here the task of experimental characterisation is blind and becomes unwieldy. It is highly unlikely that all known proteins will ever be completely experimentally characterised [4]. Thus, there is an emergent need to develop fast and accurate computational approaches to fulfil this requirement. Towards this end, we prepared a dataset for protein function prediction by extracting protein sequences and annotations of reviewed prokaryotic proteins (total count 323,719 as accessed on date March 10, 2019) belonging to 9 bacterial phyla Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, Chlamydiae, Cyanobacteria, Firmicutes, Fusobacteria, Proteobacteria, Spirochaetes and Tenericutes. Corresponding to the most frequent 1739 Gene Ontology (Molecular Function) terms, samples were filtered, and 171,212 proteins were retrieved for feature generation. The Dataset was generated by calculating the sequence, sub-sequence, physiochemical, annotation-based features for each 171,212 reviewed proteins using method in [10]. These features constitute a total of 9890 attributes for each sequence of protein along with 1739 Gene Ontology terms. Each protein sequence is assigned one or more of 1739 Gene Ontology (Molecular Function) term as its target label. The Dataset contains the Entry and Entry name of each sequence corresponding to UniprotKB Database. This dataset being huge in size (171,212 samples X 9890 features, 1739 classes with multiple values) and equipped with enough number of positive and negative samples of each 1739 class, is good for testing efficiency of any upcoming deep learning models [5]. We divided the full dataset of 171,212 reviewed proteins in the ratio 3:1 to form Train/Test dataset 1; train dataset with 128,409 samples and test dataset with 42,803 samples to facilitate training of a deep learning model. The train and test datasets are stratified to contain good proportion of each 1739 classes. We then prepared a dataset 2 of pathogenic unreviewed proteins of the 9 bacterial phyla each with 9890 features same as train/train dataset of reviewed proteins but without target labels in order to predict their functions using deep learning model proposed in [5].
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.