Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36793881›Full record

ArticlePHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.)2022

vHULK, a New Tool for Bacteriophage Host Prediction Based on Annotated Genomic Features and Neural Networks.

Deyvid Amgarten, Bruno Koshin Vázquez Iha, Carlos Morais Piroupo, Aline Maria da Silva, João Carlos Setubal

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PHAGE (New Rochelle, N.Y.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–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

36 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Deyvid AmgartenDepartamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Bruno Koshin Vázquez IhaDepartamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Carlos Morais PiroupoDepartamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Aline Maria da SilvaDepartamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
João Carlos SetubalDepartamento de Bioquímica, Instituto de Química, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9174-2816

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The experimental determination of a bacteriophage host is a laborious procedure. Thus, there is a pressing need for reliable computational predictions of bacteriophage hosts. Materials and Methods: We developed the program vHULK for phage host prediction based on 9504 phage genome features, which consider alignment significance scores between predicted proteins and a curated database of viral protein families. The features were fed to a neural network, and two models were trained to predict 77 host genera and 118 host species. Results: In controlled random test sets with 90% redundancy reduction in terms of protein similarity, vHULK obtained on average 83% precision and 79% recall at the genus level, and 71% precision and 67% recall at the species level. The performance of vHULK was compared against three other tools on a test data set with 2153 phage genomes. On this data set, vHULK achieved better performance at both the genus and the species levels than the other tools. Conclusions: Our results suggest that vHULK represents an advance on the state of art in phage host prediction.

Indexed as

Acinetobacter baumanniiEnterococcus faeciumKlebsiella pneumoniaemachine learningPseudomonas aeruginosaStaphylococcus aureus

Identifiers

PMID36793881
PMCPMC9917316

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.