AMPer: a database and an automated discovery tool for antimicrobial peptides
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Increasing antibiotics resistance in human pathogens represents a pressing public health issue worldwide for which novel antibiotic therapies based on antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) may offer one possible solution. In the current study, we utilized publicly available data on AMPs to construct hidden Markov models (HMMs) that enable recognition of individual classes of antimicrobials peptides (such as defensins, cathelicidins, cecropins, etc.) with up to 99% accuracy and can be used for discovering novel AMP candidates. RESULTS: HMM models for both mature peptides and propeptides were constructed. A total of 146 models for mature peptides and 40 for propeptides have been developed for individual AMP classes. These were created by clustering and analyzing AMP sequences available in the public sources and by consequent iterative scanning of the Swiss-Prot database for previously unknown gene-coded AMPs. As a result, an additional 229 additional AMPs have been identified from Swiss-Prot, and all but 34 could be associated with known antimicrobial activities according to the literature. The final set of 1045 mature peptides and 253 propeptides have been organized into the open-source AMPer database. AVAILABILITY: The developed HMM-based tools and AMP sequences can be accessed through the AMPer resource at http://www.cnbi2.com/cgi-bin/amp.pl
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.013 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".