Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38549014›Full record

ArticleMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2024

Integrating a Multi-label Deep Learning Approach with Protein Information to Compare Bioactive Peptides in Brain and Plasma.

Alexander G B Grønning, Camilla Schéele

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Alexander G B GrønningNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark. alexander.groenning@sund.ku.dk.
Camilla SchéeleNovo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
University of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Peptide therapeutics is gaining momentum. Advances in the field of peptidomics have enabled researchers to harvest vital information from various organisms and tissue types concerning peptide existence, expression and function. The development of mass spectrometry techniques for high-throughput peptide quantitation has paved the way for the identification and discovery of numerous known and novel peptides. Though much has been achieved, scientists are still facing difficulties when it comes to reducing the search space of the large mass spectrometry-generated peptidomics datasets and focusing on the subset of functionally relevant peptides. Moreover, there is currently no straightforward way to analytically compare the distributions of bioactive peptides in distinct biological samples, which may reveal much useful information when seeking to characterize tissue- or fluid-specific peptidomes. In this chapter, we demonstrate how to identify, rank, and compare predicted bioactive peptides and bioactivity distributions from extensive peptidomics datasets. To aid this task, we utilize MultiPep, a multi-label deep learning approach designed for classifying peptide bioactivities, to identify bioactive peptides. The predicted bioactivities are synergistically combined with protein information from the UniProt database, which assist in navigating through the jungle of putative therapeutic peptides and relevant peptide leads.

Indexed as

Deep LearningBrainMass SpectrometryPeptidesPlasmaPeptidesDeep learningNeuropeptidePeptide bioactivityPeptide hormonePeptide therapeuticsPeptidomics

Identifiers

PMID38549014
OpenAlexW4393285661

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.