ArticleBMC biology2025
Advancing virulence factor prediction using protein language models.
Article in BMC biology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protein language models enable accurate viral host range prediction.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Exo-Tox: Identifying Exotoxins from secreted bacterial proteins.BioData mining · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBacterial infections rank as the second leading cause of death globally, with virulence factors (VFs) being crucial to their pathogenicity. Predicting VFs accurately can uncover mechanisms of bacterial diseases and suggest new treatments. Current machine learning (ML) methods face challenges, such as outdated feature extraction, simplistic forecasting frameworks, and lack of differentiation between gram-positive (G +) and gram-negative (G -) bacteria.
resultsIn this study, we introduced pLM4VF, a predictive framework that utilized ESM protein language models to extract VF characteristics of G + and G - bacteria separately, and further integrated the models using the stacking strategy. Extensive benchmarking experiments on the independent test demonstrated that pLM4VF outperformed state-of-the-art methods, exhibiting improved accuracy by 0.088-0.320 and 0.063-0.307 for VF prediction of G + and G - bacteria, respectively. Biological validations through cytotoxicity and acute toxicity assays further corroborated the reliability of pLM4VF. Additionally, an online tool ( https://compbiolab.hainanu.edu.cn ) has been developed that enables inexperienced researchers on ML to obtain VFs of various bacteria at the whole-genome scale.
conclusionsWe believe that pLM4VF will offer substantial support in uncovering pathogenic mechanisms, developing novel antibacterial treatments and vaccines, thereby aiding in the prevention and management of bacterial diseases.
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.