ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2021
Text mining for modeling of protein complexes enhanced by machine learning.
Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pan-Cancer Analysis of PGAM1 and Its Experimental Validation in Uveal Melanoma Progression.Journal of Cancer · 2024Article
- Integrative Analysis of the Role ofCurrent issues in molecular biology · 2023Article
- Natural product drug discovery in the artificial intelligence era.Chemical science · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
motivationProcedures for structural modeling of protein-protein complexes (protein docking) produce a number of models which need to be further analyzed and scored. Scoring can be based on independently determined constraints on the structure of the complex, such as knowledge of amino acids essential for the protein interaction. Previously, we showed that text mining of residues in freely available PubMed abstracts of papers on studies of protein-protein interactions may generate such constraints. However, absence of post-processing of the spotted residues reduced usability of the constraints, as a significant number of the residues were not relevant for the binding of the specific proteins.
resultsWe explored filtering of the irrelevant residues by two machine learning approaches, Deep Recursive Neural Network (DRNN) and Support Vector Machine (SVM) models with different training/testing schemes. The results showed that the DRNN model is superior to the SVM model when training is performed on the PMC-OA full-text articles and applied to classification (interface or non-interface) of the residues spotted in the PubMed abstracts. When both training and testing is performed on full-text articles or on abstracts, the performance of these models is similar. Thus, in such cases, there is no need to utilize computationally demanding DRNN approach, which is computationally expensive especially at the training stage. The reason is that SVM success is often determined by the similarity in data/text patterns in the training and the testing sets, whereas the sentence structures in the abstracts are, in general, different from those in the full text articles. AVAILABILITYAND IMPLEMENTATION: The code and the datasets generated in this study are available at https://gitlab.ku.edu/vakser-lab-public/text-mining/-/tree/2020-09-04. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
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.