MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104873783 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btm475

PFRES: protein fold classification by using evolutionary information and predicted secondary structure

2007· article· en· W2104873783 on OpenAlexafffund
Ke Chen, Lukasz Kurgan

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsProtein tertiary structureProtein secondary structureComputer sciencePseudo amino acid compositionSimilarity (geometry)Classifier (UML)Pattern recognition (psychology)Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB)Fold (higher-order function)Protein superfamilyProtein structure predictionRepresentation (politics)Feature vectorStructural Classification of Proteins databaseProtein structureSequence (biology)Structural alignmentData miningAlgorithmArtificial intelligenceSequence alignmentBiologyPeptide sequenceAmino acidGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: The number of protein families has been estimated to be as small as 1000. Recent study shows that the growth in discovery of novel structures that are deposited into PDB and the related rate of increase of SCOP categories are slowing down. This indicates that the protein structure space will be soon covered and thus we may be able to derive most of remaining structures by using the known folding patterns. Present tertiary structure prediction methods behave well when a homologous structure is predicted, but give poorer results when no homologous templates are available. At the same time, some proteins that share twilight-zone sequence identity can form similar folds. Therefore, determination of structural similarity without sequence similarity would be beneficial for prediction of tertiary structures. RESULTS: The proposed PFRES method for automated protein fold classification from low identity (<35%) sequences obtains 66.4% and 68.4% accuracy for two test sets, respectively. PFRES obtains 6.3-12.4% higher accuracy than the existing methods. The prediction accuracy of PFRES is shown to be statistically significantly better than the accuracy of competing methods. Our method adopts a carefully designed, ensemble-based classifier, and a novel, compact and custom-designed feature representation that includes nearly 90% less features than the representation of the most accurate competing method (36 versus 283). The proposed representation combines evolutionary information by using the PSI-BLAST profile-based composition vector and information extracted from the secondary structure predicted with PSI-PRED. AVAILABILITY: The method is freely available from the authors upon request.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations122
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207