Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39247292›Full record

ArticleHeliyon2024

Antiprotozoal peptide prediction using machine learning with effective feature selection techniques.

Neha Periwal, Pooja Arora, Ananya Thakur, Lakshay Agrawal, Yash Goyal, Anand S Rathore, Harsimrat Singh Anand, Baljeet Kaur, Vikas Sood

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. IntelligentFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2026
    Article
  3. Review
  4. ScymicrosinFrontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
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

9 authors.

Neha PeriwalDepartment of Biochemistry, Jamia Hamdard, India.
Pooja AroraDepartment of Zoology, Hansraj College, University of Delhi, India.
Ananya ThakurDepartment of Biochemistry, Jamia Hamdard, India.
Lakshay AgrawalFreestand Sampling Pvt. Ltd, Delhi, India.
Yash GoyalDepartment of Computer Science, Hansraj College, University of Delhi, India.
Anand S RathoreDepartment of Zoology, Hansraj College, University of Delhi, India.
Harsimrat Singh AnandFaculty of Engineering and Mathematics, University of Waterloo, Canada.
Baljeet KaurDepartment of Computer Science, Hansraj College, University of Delhi, India.
Vikas SoodDepartment of Biochemistry, Jamia Hamdard, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Protozoal pathogens pose a considerable threat, leading to notable mortality rates and the ongoing challenge of developing resistance to drugs. This situation underscores the urgent need for alternative therapeutic approaches. Antimicrobial peptides stand out as promising candidates for drug development. However, there is a lack of published research focusing on predicting antimicrobial peptides specifically targeting protozoal pathogens. In this study, we introduce a successful machine learning-based framework designed to predict potential antiprotozoal peptides effective against protozoal pathogens. Objective: The primary objective of this study is to classify and predict antiprotozoal peptides using diverse negative datasets. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was conducted to gather experimentally validated antiprotozoal peptides, forming the positive dataset for our study. To construct a robust machine learning classifier, multiple negative datasets were incorporated, including (i) non-antimicrobial, (ii) antiviral, (iii) antibacterial, (iv) antifungal, and (v) antimicrobial peptides excluding those targeting protozoal pathogens. Various compositional features of the peptides were extracted using the pfeature algorithm. Two feature selection methods, SVC-L1 and mRMR, were employed to identify highly relevant features crucial for distinguishing between the positive and negative datasets. Additionally, five popular classifiers i.e. Decision Tree, Random Forest, Support Vector Machine, Logistic Regression, and XGBoost were used to build efficient decision models. Results: XGBoost was the most effective in classifying antiprotozoal peptides from each negative dataset based on the features selected by the mRMR feature selection method. The proposed machine learning framework efficiently differentiate the antiprotozoal peptides from (i) non-antimicrobial (ii) antiviral (iii) antibacterial (iv) antifungal and (v) antimicrobial with accuracy of 97.27 %, 93.64 %, 86.36 %, 90.91 %, and 89.09 % respectively on the validation dataset. Conclusion: The models are incorporated in a user-friendly web server (www.soodlab.com/appred) to predict the antiprotozoal activity of given peptides.

Indexed as

Antimicrobial peptidesAntiprotozoal peptidesAntiviral peptidesFeature selectionMachine learningNon-AMP peptidesPeptide prediction

Identifiers

PMID39247292
PMCPMC11380031

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.