ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Inferring RNA-binding protein target preferences using adversarial domain adaptation.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2022. 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.
- Augmented prediction of multi-species protein-RNA interactions using evolutionary conservation of RNA-binding proteins.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Emerging RNA-centric technologies to probe RNA-protein interactions: importance in decoding the life cycle of positive sense single strand RNA viruses and antiviral discovery.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2025Review
- A systematic benchmark of machine learning methods for protein-RNA interaction prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precise identification of target sites of RNA-binding proteins (RBP) is important to understand their biochemical and cellular functions. A large amount of experimental data is generated by in vivo and in vitro approaches. The binding preferences determined from these platforms share similar patterns but there are discernable differences between these datasets. Computational methods trained on one dataset do not always work well on another dataset. To address this problem which resembles the classic "domain shift" in deep learning, we adopted the adversarial domain adaptation (ADDA) technique and developed a framework (RBP-ADDA) that can extract RBP binding preferences from an integration of in vivo and vitro datasets. Compared with conventional methods, ADDA has the advantage of working with two input datasets, as it trains the initial neural network for each dataset individually, projects the two datasets onto a feature space, and uses an adversarial framework to derive an optimal network that achieves an optimal discriminative predictive power. In the first step, for each RBP, we include only the in vitro data to pre-train a source network and a task predictor. Next, for the same RBP, we initiate the target network by using the source network and use adversarial domain adaptation to update the target network using both in vitro and in vivo data. These two steps help leverage the in vitro data to improve the prediction on in vivo data, which is typically challenging with a lower signal-to-noise ratio. Finally, to further take the advantage of the fused source and target data, we fine-tune the task predictor using both data. We showed that RBP-ADDA achieved better performance in modeling in vivo RBP binding data than other existing methods as judged by Pearson correlations. It also improved predictive performance on in vitro datasets. We further applied augmentation operations on RBPs with less in vivo data to expand the input data and showed that it can improve prediction performances. Lastly, we explored the predictive interpretability of RBP-ADDA, where we quantified the contribution of the input features by Integrated Gradients and identified nucleotide positions that are important for RBP recognition.
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.