ArticlePLoS computational biology2022
Ten quick tips for sequence-based prediction of protein properties using machine learning.
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 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- PLM-eXplain: divide and conquer the protein embedding space.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of tissue-specific anticancer peptide prediction models: ACP-Boost framework.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2026Article
- PIPENN-EMB ensemble net and protein embeddings generalise protein interface prediction beyond homology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Multi-Peptide: Multimodality Leveraged Language-Graph Learning of Peptide Properties.Journal of chemical information and modeling · 2025Article
- A review on computational models for predicting protein solubility.Journal of microbiology (Seoul, Korea) · 2025Review
- Transcription factor prediction using protein 3D secondary structures.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Review
- Seven quick tips for gene-focused computational pangenomic analysis.BioData mining · 2024Article
- Significance of Sequence Features in Classification of Protein-Protein Interactions Using Machine Learning.The protein journal · 2024Article
- Pitfalls of machine learning models for protein-protein interaction networks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- PatchProt: hydrophobic patch prediction using protein foundation models.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
- Seq2Phase: language model-based accurate prediction of client proteins in liquid-liquid phase separation.Bioinformatics advances · 2024Article
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
The ubiquitous availability of genome sequencing data explains the popularity of machine learning-based methods for the prediction of protein properties from their amino acid sequences. Over the years, while revising our own work, reading submitted manuscripts as well as published papers, we have noticed several recurring issues, which make some reported findings hard to understand and replicate. We suspect this may be due to biologists being unfamiliar with machine learning methodology, or conversely, machine learning experts may miss some of the knowledge needed to correctly apply their methods to proteins. Here, we aim to bridge this gap for developers of such methods. The most striking issues are linked to a lack of clarity: how were annotations of interest obtained; which benchmark metrics were used; how are positives and negatives defined. Others relate to a lack of rigor: If you sneak in structural information, your method is not sequence-based; if you compare your own model to "state-of-the-art," take the best methods; if you want to conclude that some method is better than another, obtain a significance estimate to support this claim. These, and other issues, we will cover in detail. These points may have seemed obvious to the authors during writing; however, they are not always clear-cut to the readers. We also expect many of these tips to hold for other machine learning-based applications in biology. Therefore, many computational biologists who develop methods in this particular subject will benefit from a concise overview of what to avoid and what to do instead.
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.