Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36174101›Full record

ArticlePLoS computational biology2022

Generative and interpretable machine learning for aptamer design and analysis of in vitro sequence selection.

Andrea Di Gioacchino, Jonah Procyk, Marco Molari, John S Schreck, Yu Zhou, Yan Liu, Rémi Monasson, Simona Cocco, Petr Šulc

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Spiegelmer Aptamers: Innovative Approach in Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Machine Learning for RNA Design: LEARNA.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Andrea Di GioacchinoLaboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL & CNRS UMR8063, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-6085-7589
Jonah ProcykSchool of Molecular Sciences and Center for Molecular Design and Biomimetics, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Marco MolariLaboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL & CNRS UMR8063, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-8838-4093
John S SchreckNational Center for Atmospheric Research, Computational and Information Systems Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado, United States of America.
Yu ZhouSchool of Molecular Sciences and Center for Molecular Design and Biomimetics, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Yan LiuSchool of Molecular Sciences and Center for Molecular Design and Biomimetics, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.
Rémi MonassonLaboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL & CNRS UMR8063, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Simona CoccoLaboratoire de Physique de l'Ecole Normale Supérieure, PSL & CNRS UMR8063, Sorbonne Université, Université de Paris, Paris, France.
Petr ŠulcSchool of Molecular Sciences and Center for Molecular Design and Biomimetics, The Biodesign Institute, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1565-6769
Arizona State University · USCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRNSF National Center for Atmospheric Research · USSIB Swiss Institute of Bioinformatics · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Selection protocols such as SELEX, where molecules are selected over multiple rounds for their ability to bind to a target of interest, are popular methods for obtaining binders for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. We show that Restricted Boltzmann Machines (RBMs), an unsupervised two-layer neural network architecture, can successfully be trained on sequence ensembles from single rounds of SELEX experiments for thrombin aptamers. RBMs assign scores to sequences that can be directly related to their fitnesses estimated through experimental enrichment ratios. Hence, RBMs trained from sequence data at a given round can be used to predict the effects of selection at later rounds. Moreover, the parameters of the trained RBMs are interpretable and identify functional features contributing most to sequence fitness. To exploit the generative capabilities of RBMs, we introduce two different training protocols: one taking into account sequence counts, capable of identifying the few best binders, and another based on unique sequences only, generating more diverse binders. We then use RBMs model to generate novel aptamers with putative disruptive mutations or good binding properties, and validate the generated sequences with gel shift assay experiments. Finally, we compare the RBM's performance with different supervised learning approaches that include random forests and several deep neural network architectures.

Indexed as

Neural Networks, ComputerThrombinMachine LearningThrombin

Identifiers

PMID36174101
PMCPMC9553063
OpenAlexW4297990198

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.