ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Predicting transcriptional activation domain function using Graph Neural Networks.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Analysis of factors that lead to the functionality of transcriptional activation domains remains a crucial and yet challenging task owing to the significant diversity in their sequences and their intrinsically disordered nature. Almost all existing methods that have aimed to predict activation domains have involved traditional machine learning approaches, such as logistic regression, that are unable to capture complex patterns in data or plain convolutional neural networks and have been limited in exploration of structural features. However, there is a tremendous potential in the inspection of the structural properties of activation domains, and an opportunity to investigate complex relationships between features of residues in the sequence. To address these, we have utilized the power of graph neural networks which can represent structural data in the form of nodes and edges, allowing nodes to exchange information among themselves. We have experimented with two kinds of graph formulations, one involving residues as nodes and the other assigning atoms to be the nodes. A logistic regression model was also developed to analyze feature importance. For all the models, several feature combinations were experimented with. The residue-level GNN model with amino acid type, residue position, acidic/basic/aromatic property and secondary structure feature combination gave the best performing model with accuracy, F1 score and AUROC of 97.9%, 71% and 97.1% respectively which outperformed other existing methods in the literature when applied on the dataset we used. Among the other structure-based features that were analyzed, the amphipathic property of helices also proved to be an important feature for classification. Logistic regression results showed that the most dominant feature that makes a sequence functional is the frequency of different types of amino acids in the sequence. Our results consistent have shown that functional sequences have more acidic and aromatic residues whereas basic residues are seen more in non-functional sequences.
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.