PSORT-B: improving protein subcellular localization prediction for Gram-negative bacteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Automated prediction of bacterial protein subcellular localization is an important tool for genome annotation and drug discovery. PSORT has been one of the most widely used computational methods for such bacterial protein analysis; however, it has not been updated since it was introduced in 1991. In addition, neither PSORT nor any of the other computational methods available make predictions for all five of the localization sites characteristic of Gram-negative bacteria. Here we present PSORT-B, an updated version of PSORT for Gram-negative bacteria, which is available as a web-based application at http://www.psort.org. PSORT-B examines a given protein sequence for amino acid composition, similarity to proteins of known localization, presence of a signal peptide, transmembrane alpha-helices and motifs corresponding to specific localizations. A probabilistic method integrates these analyses, returning a list of five possible localization sites with associated probability scores. PSORT-B, designed to favor high precision (specificity) over high recall (sensitivity), attained an overall precision of 97% and recall of 75% in 5-fold cross-validation tests, using a dataset we developed of 1443 proteins of experimentally known localization. This dataset, the largest of its kind, is freely available, along with the PSORT-B source code (under GNU General Public License).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
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.
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".