Prediction of integral membrane protein type by collocated hydrophobic amino acid pairs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A computational model, IMP-TYPE, is proposed for the classification of five types of integral membrane proteins from protein sequence. The proposed model aims not only at providing accurate predictions but most importantly it incorporates interesting and transparent biological patterns. When contrasted with the best-performing existing models, IMP-TYPE reduces the error rates of these methods by 19 and 34% for two out-of-sample tests performed on benchmark datasets. Our empirical evaluations also show that the proposed method provides even bigger improvements, i.e., 29 and 45% error rate reductions, when predictions are performed for sequences that share low (40%) identity with sequences from the training dataset. We also show that IMP-TYPE can be used in a standalone mode, i.e., it duplicates significant majority of correct predictions provided by other leading methods, while providing additional correct predictions which are incorrectly classified by the other methods. Our method computes predictions using a Support Vector Machine classifier that takes feature-based encoded sequence as its input. The input feature set includes hydrophobic AA pairs, which were selected by utilizing a consensus of three feature selection algorithms. The hydrophobic residues that build up the AA pairs used by our method are shown to be associated with the formation of transmembrane helices in a few recent studies concerning integral membrane proteins. Our study also indicates that Met and Phe display a certain degree of hydrophobicity, which may be more crucial than their polarity or aromaticity when they occur in the transmembrane segments. This conclusion is supported by a recent study on potential of mean force for membrane protein folding and a study of scales for membrane propensity of amino acids.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".