Computational Prediction of Effector Proteins in Fungi: Opportunities and Challenges
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effector proteins are mostly secretory proteins that stimulate plant infection by manipulating the host response. Identifying fungal effector proteins and understanding their function is of great importance in efforts to curb losses to plant diseases. Recent advances in high-throughput sequencing technologies have facilitated the availability of several fungal genomes and 1000s of transcriptomes. As a result, the growing amount of genomic information has provided great opportunities to identify putative effector proteins in different fungal species. There is little consensus over the annotation and functionality of effector proteins, and mostly small secretory proteins are considered as effector proteins, a concept that tends to overestimate the number of proteins involved in a plant-pathogen interaction. With the characterization of Avr genes, criteria for computational prediction of effector proteins are becoming more efficient. There are 100s of tools available for the identification of conserved motifs, signature sequences and structural features in the proteins. Many pipelines and online servers, which combine several tools, are made available to perform genome-wide identification of effector proteins. In this review, available tools and pipelines, their strength and limitations for effective identification of fungal effector proteins are discussed. We also present an exhaustive list of classically secreted proteins along with their key conserved motifs found in 12 common plant pathogens (11 fungi and one oomycete) through an analytical pipeline.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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".