ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2023
Predicting fungal secondary metabolite activity from biosynthetic gene cluster data using machine learning.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Fungal secondary metabolites (SMs) play a significant role in the diversity of ecological communities, niches, and lifestyles in the fungal kingdom. Many fungal SMs have medically and industrially important properties including antifungal, antibacterial, and antitumor activity, and a single metabolite can display multiple types of bioactivities. The genes necessary for fungal SM biosynthesis are typically found in a single genomic region forming biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs). However, whether fungal SM bioactivity can be predicted from specific attributes of genes in BGCs remains an open question. We adapted previously used machine learning models for predicting SM bioactivity from bacterial BGC data to fungal BGC data. We trained our models to predict antibacterial, antifungal, and cytotoxic/antitumor bioactivity on two datasets: 1) fungal BGCs (dataset comprised of 314 BGCs), and 2) fungal (314 BGCs) and bacterial BGCs (1,003 BGCs); the second dataset was our control since a previous study using just the bacterial BGC data yielded prediction accuracies as high as 80%. We found that the models trained only on fungal BGCs had balanced accuracies between 51-68%, whereas training on bacterial and fungal BGCs yielded balanced accuracies between 61-74%. The lower accuracy of the predictions from fungal data likely stems from the small number of BGCs and SMs with known bioactivity; this lack of data currently limits the application of machine learning approaches in studying fungal secondary metabolism. However, our data also suggest that machine learning approaches trained on bacterial and fungal data can predict SM bioactivity with good accuracy. With more than 15,000 characterized fungal SMs, millions of putative BGCs present in fungal genomes, and increased demand for novel drugs, efforts that systematically link fungal SM bioactivity to BGCs are urgently needed.
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.