WaVPeak: picking NMR peaks through wavelet-based smoothing and volume-based filtering
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) has been widely used as a powerful tool to determine the 3D structures of proteins in vivo. However, the post-spectra processing stage of NMR structure determination usually involves a tremendous amount of time and expert knowledge, which includes peak picking, chemical shift assignment and structure calculation steps. Detecting accurate peaks from the NMR spectra is a prerequisite for all following steps, and thus remains a key problem in automatic NMR structure determination. RESULTS: We introduce WaVPeak, a fully automatic peak detection method. WaVPeak first smoothes the given NMR spectrum by wavelets. The peaks are then identified as the local maxima. The false positive peaks are filtered out efficiently by considering the volume of the peaks. WaVPeak has two major advantages over the state-of-the-art peak-picking methods. First, through wavelet-based smoothing, WaVPeak does not eliminate any data point in the spectra. Therefore, WaVPeak is able to detect weak peaks that are embedded in the noise level. NMR spectroscopists need the most help isolating these weak peaks. Second, WaVPeak estimates the volume of the peaks to filter the false positives. This is more reliable than intensity-based filters that are widely used in existing methods. We evaluate the performance of WaVPeak on the benchmark set proposed by PICKY (Alipanahi et al., 2009), one of the most accurate methods in the literature. The dataset comprises 32 2D and 3D spectra from eight different proteins. Experimental results demonstrate that WaVPeak achieves an average of 96%, 91%, 88%, 76% and 85% recall on (15)N-HSQC, HNCO, HNCA, HNCACB and CBCA(CO)NH, respectively. When the same number of peaks are considered, WaVPeak significantly outperforms PICKY. AVAILABILITY: WaVPeak is an open source program. The source code and two test spectra of WaVPeak are available at http://faculty.kaust.edu.sa/sites/xingao/Pages/Publications.aspx. The online server is under construction. CONTACT: statliuzhi@xmu.edu.cn; ahmed.abbas@kaust.edu.sa; majing@ust.hk; xin.gao@kaust.edu.sa.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
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".