ArticleFrontiers in microbiology2024
AGRAMP: machine learning models for predicting antimicrobial peptides against phytopathogenic bacteria.
Article in Frontiers in microbiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence catalyzes antimicrobial peptide design.Synthetic and systems biotechnology · 2027Review
- tsAMP: a strain-level antimicrobial peptide identification framework based on large language models and pathogen genomic variation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial peptides: emerging next-generation strategy for sustainable plant disease management.Frontiers in antibiotics · 2026Review
- AI Methods for Antimicrobial Peptides: Progress and Challenges.Microbial biotechnology · 2025Review
- Prediction of Protein Secondary Structures Based on Substructural Descriptors of Molecular Fragments.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Antibiotic-producing plant-associated bacteria, anti-virulence therapy and microbiome engineering: Integrated approaches in sustainable agriculture.Microbial biotechnology · 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
Introduction: Antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) are promising alternatives to traditional antibiotics for combating plant pathogenic bacteria in agriculture and the environment. However, identifying potent AMPs through laborious experimental assays is resource-intensive and time-consuming. To address these limitations, this study presents a bioinformatics approach utilizing machine learning models for predicting and selecting AMPs active against plant pathogenic bacteria. Methods: N-gram representations of peptide sequences with 3-letter and 9-letter reduced amino acid alphabets were used to capture the sequence patterns and motifs that contribute to the antimicrobial activity of AMPs. A 5-fold cross-validation technique was used to train the machine learning models and to evaluate their predictive accuracy and robustness. Results: The models were applied to predict putative AMPs encoded by intergenic regions and small open reading frames (ORFs) of the citrus genome. Approximately 7% of the 10,000-peptide dataset from the intergenic region and 7% of the 685,924-peptide dataset from the whole genome were predicted as probable AMPs. The prediction accuracy of the reported models range from 0.72 to 0.91. A subset of the predicted AMPs was selected for experimental test against Discussion: Hydrophobic amino acid residues and positively charged amino acid residues are among the key features in predicting AMPs by the Random Forest Algorithm. Aggregation propensity appears to be correlated with the effectiveness of the AMPs. The described models would contribute to the development of effective AMP-based strategies for plant disease management in agricultural and environmental settings. To facilitate broader accessibility, our model is publicly available on the AGRAMP (Agricultural Ngrams Antimicrobial Peptides) server.
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.