Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33841755›Full record

ReviewComputational and structural biotechnology journal2021

A review on compound-protein interaction prediction methods: Data, format, representation and model.

Sangsoo Lim, Yijingxiu Lu, Chang Yun Cho, Inyoung Sung, Jungwoo Kim, Youngkuk Kim, Sungjoon Park, Sun Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and structural biotechnology journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing 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

47 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. The return of metabolism: biochemistry and physiology of glycolysis.Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  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

8 authors.

Sangsoo LimBioinformatics Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Yijingxiu LuDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chang Yun ChoInstitute of Engineering Research, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Inyoung SungInstitute of Engineering Research, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Jungwoo KimDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Youngkuk KimDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sungjoon ParkDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, College of Engineering, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Sun KimBioinformatics Institute, Seoul National University, Seoul, Republic of Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There has recently been a rapid progress in computational methods for determining protein targets of small molecule drugs, which will be termed as compound protein interaction (CPI). In this review, we comprehensively review topics related to computational prediction of CPI. Data for CPI has been accumulated and curated significantly both in quantity and quality. Computational methods have become powerful ever to analyze such complex the data. Thus, recent successes in the improved quality of CPI prediction are due to use of both sophisticated computational techniques and higher quality information in the databases. The goal of this article is to provide reviews of topics related to CPI, such as data, format, representation, to computational models, so that researchers can take full advantages of these resources to develop novel prediction methods. Chemical compounds and protein data from various resources were discussed in terms of data formats and encoding schemes. For the CPI methods, we grouped prediction methods into five categories from traditional machine learning techniques to state-of-the-art deep learning techniques. In closing, we discussed emerging machine learning topics to help both experimental and computational scientists leverage the current knowledge and strategies to develop more powerful and accurate CPI prediction methods.

Indexed as

Chemical descriptorsCompound-protein interactionData representationDeep learningInterpretable learningMachine learningPharmacophore discoveryProtein descriptors

Identifiers

PMID33841755
PMCPMC8008185

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.