ArticlePeerJ2024
EPI-SF: essential protein identification in protein interaction networks using sequence features.
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Protein Sequence Analysis landscape: A Systematic Review of Task Types, Databases, Datasets, Word Embeddings Methods, and Language Models.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2025Pooled it
- A CSGNN model-based method for essential protein identification.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Proteins are considered indispensable for facilitating an organism's viability, reproductive capabilities, and other fundamental physiological functions. Conventional biological assays are characterized by prolonged duration, extensive labor requirements, and financial expenses in order to identify essential proteins. Therefore, it is widely accepted that employing computational methods is the most expeditious and effective approach to successfully discerning essential proteins. Despite being a popular choice in machine learning (ML) applications, the deep learning (DL) method is not suggested for this specific research work based on sequence features due to the restricted availability of high-quality training sets of positive and negative samples. However, some DL works on limited availability of data are also executed at recent times which will be our future scope of work. Conventional ML techniques are thus utilized in this work due to their superior performance compared to DL methodologies. In consideration of the aforementioned, a technique called EPI-SF is proposed here, which employs ML to identify essential proteins within the protein-protein interaction network (PPIN). The protein sequence is the primary determinant of protein structure and function. So, initially, relevant protein sequence features are extracted from the proteins within the PPIN. These features are subsequently utilized as input for various machine learning models, including XGB Boost Classifier, AdaBoost Classifier, logistic regression (LR), support vector classification (SVM), Decision Tree model (DT), Random Forest model (RF), and Naïve Bayes model (NB). The objective is to detect the essential proteins within the PPIN. The primary investigation conducted on yeast examined the performance of various ML models for yeast PPIN. Among these models, the RF model technique had the highest level of effectiveness, as indicated by its precision, recall, F1-score, and AUC values of 0.703, 0.720, 0.711, and 0.745, respectively. It is also found to be better in performance when compared to the other state-of-arts based on traditional centrality like betweenness centrality (BC), closeness centrality (CC),
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.