MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2151908672 · doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btv318

Computer vision-based automated peak picking applied to protein NMR spectra

2015· article· en· W2151908672 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Piotr Klukowski, Michał Walczak, Adam Gonczarek, Julien Boudet, Gerhard Wider

Bibliographic record

VenueBioinformatics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Structure and Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of WaterlooKing Abdullah University of Science and Technology
KeywordsComputer scienceNMR spectra databaseIdentification (biology)Spectral lineArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPattern recognition (psychology)Automated methodBiological systemPhysicsBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

MOTIVATION: A detailed analysis of multidimensional NMR spectra of macromolecules requires the identification of individual resonances (peaks). This task can be tedious and time-consuming and often requires support by experienced users. Automated peak picking algorithms were introduced more than 25 years ago, but there are still major deficiencies/flaws that often prevent complete and error free peak picking of biological macromolecule spectra. The major challenges of automated peak picking algorithms is both the distinction of artifacts from real peaks particularly from those with irregular shapes and also picking peaks in spectral regions with overlapping resonances which are very hard to resolve by existing computer algorithms. In both of these cases a visual inspection approach could be more effective than a 'blind' algorithm. RESULTS: We present a novel approach using computer vision (CV) methodology which could be better adapted to the problem of peak recognition. After suitable 'training' we successfully applied the CV algorithm to spectra of medium-sized soluble proteins up to molecular weights of 26 kDa and to a 130 kDa complex of a tetrameric membrane protein in detergent micelles. Our CV approach outperforms commonly used programs. With suitable training datasets the application of the presented method can be extended to automated peak picking in multidimensional spectra of nucleic acids or carbohydrates and adapted to solid-state NMR spectra. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: CV-Peak Picker is available upon request from the authors. CONTACT: gsw@mol.biol.ethz.ch; michal.walczak@mol.biol.ethz.ch; adam.gonczarek@pwr.edu.pl SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.640
Threshold uncertainty score0.687

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations28
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBioinformaticsSame topicProtein Structure and DynamicsFrench-language works237,207