ArticleVirus evolution2021
Tuning intrinsic disorder predictors for virus proteins.
Article in Virus evolution, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many virus-encoded proteins have intrinsically disordered regions that lack a stable, folded three-dimensional structure. These disordered proteins often play important functional roles in virus replication, such as down-regulating host defense mechanisms. With the widespread availability of next-generation sequencing, the number of new virus genomes with predicted open reading frames is rapidly outpacing our capacity for directly characterizing protein structures through crystallography. Hence, computational methods for structural prediction play an important role. A large number of predictors focus on the problem of classifying residues into ordered and disordered regions, and these methods tend to be validated on a diverse training set of proteins from eukaryotes, prokaryotes, and viruses. In this study, we investigate whether some predictors outperform others in the context of virus proteins and compared our findings with data from non-viral proteins. We evaluate the prediction accuracy of 21 methods, many of which are only available as web applications, on a curated set of 126 proteins encoded by viruses. Furthermore, we apply a random forest classifier to these predictor outputs. Based on cross-validation experiments, this ensemble approach confers a substantial improvement in accuracy, e.g., a mean 36 per cent gain in Matthews correlation coefficient. Lastly, we apply the random forest predictor to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 ORF6, an accessory gene that encodes a short (61 AA) and moderately disordered protein that inhibits the host innate immune response. We show that disorder prediction methods perform differently for viral and non-viral proteins, and that an ensemble approach can yield more robust and accurate predictions.
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.