MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151031196 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btr525

Computational prediction of eukaryotic phosphorylation sites

2011· review· en· W2151031196 on OpenAlexaff
Brett Trost, Anthony Kusalik

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMachine Learning in Bioinformatics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPhosphorylationKinaseComputational biologyProtein phosphorylationMechanism (biology)Resource (disambiguation)Sequence (biology)Posttranslational modificationBiologyComputer scienceBioinformaticsProtein kinase ABiochemistryEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: Kinase-mediated phosphorylation is the central mechanism of post-translational modification to regulate cellular responses and phenotypes. Signaling defects associated with protein phosphorylation are linked to many diseases, particularly cancer. Characterizing protein kinases and their substrates enhances our ability to understand and treat such diseases and broadens our knowledge of signaling networks in general. While most or all protein kinases have been identified in well-studied eukaryotes, the sites that they phosphorylate have been only partially elucidated. Experimental methods for identifying phosphorylation sites are resource intensive, so the ability to computationally predict potential sites has considerable value. RESULTS: Many computational techniques for phosphorylation site prediction have been proposed, most of which are available on the web. These techniques differ in several ways, including the machine learning technique used; the amount of sequence information used; whether or not structural information is used in addition to sequence information; whether predictions are made for specific kinases or for kinases in general; and sources of training and testing data. This review summarizes, categorizes and compares the available methods for phosphorylation site prediction, and provides an overview of the challenges that are faced when designing predictors and how they have been addressed. It should therefore be useful both for those wishing to choose a phosphorylation site predictor for their particular biological application, and for those attempting to improve upon established techniques in the future. CONTACT: brett.trost@usask.ca.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations157
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicMachine Learning in BioinformaticsFrench-language works237,207