Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32153395›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2020

A Method for Predicting Hemolytic Potency of Chemically Modified Peptides From Its Structure.

Vinod Kumar, Rajesh Kumar, Piyush Agrawal, Sumeet Patiyal, Gajendra P S Raghava

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A large language model for predicting neurotoxic peptides and neurotoxins.Protein science : a publication of the Protein Society · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. In Silico Design of Chemically Modified Cell-Penetrating Peptides.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
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.

Vinod KumarDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla, India.
Rajesh KumarDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla, India.
Piyush AgrawalDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla, India.
Sumeet PatiyalDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla, India.
Gajendra P S RaghavaDepartment of Computational Biology, Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, Okhla, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the present study, a systematic effort has been made to predict the hemolytic potency of chemically modified peptides. All models have been trained, tested, and evaluated on a dataset that contains 583 modified hemolytic peptides and a balanced number of non-hemolytic peptides. Machine learning techniques have been used to build the classification models using an immense range of peptide features that include 2D, 3D descriptors, fingerprints, atom, and diatom compositions. Random Forest based model developed using fingerprints as an input feature achieved maximum accuracy of 78.33% with AUC of 0.86 on the main dataset and accuracy of 78.29% with AUC of 0.85 on the validation dataset. Models developed in this study have been incorporated in a web server "HemoPImod" to facilitate the scientific community (http://webs.iiitd.edu.in/raghava/hemopimod/).

Indexed as

chemical descriptorsfingerprintsHemoPImodmachine learningmodified hemolytic peptidesrandom forest

Identifiers

PMID32153395
PMCPMC7045810

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.