ASRpro: A machine‐learning computational model for identifying proteins associated with multiple abiotic stress in plants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the thrust areas of research in plant breeding is to develop crop cultivars with enhanced tolerance to abiotic stresses. Thus, identifying abiotic stress-responsive genes (SRGs) and proteins is important for plant breeding research. However, identifying such genes via established genetic approaches is laborious and resource intensive. Although transcriptome profiling has remained a reliable method of SRG identification, it is species specific. Additionally, identifying multistress responsive genes using gene expression studies is cumbersome. Thus, endorsing the need to develop a computational method for identifying the genes associated with different abiotic stresses. In this work, we aimed to develop a computational model for identifying genes responsive to six abiotic stresses: cold, drought, heat, light, oxidative, and salt. The predictions were performed using support vector machine (SVM), random forest, adaptive boosting (ADB), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB), where the autocross covariance (ACC) and K-mer compositional features were used as input. With ACC, K-mer, and ACC + K-mer compositional features, the overall accuracy of ∼60-77, ∼75-86, and ∼61-78% were respectively obtained using the SVM algorithm with fivefold cross-validation. The SVM also achieved higher accuracy than the other three algorithms. The proposed model was also assessed with an independent dataset and obtained an accuracy consistent with cross-validation. The proposed model is the first of its kind and is expected to serve the requirement of experimental biologists; however, the prediction accuracy was modest. Given its importance for the research community, the online prediction application, ASRpro, is made freely available (https://iasri-sg.icar.gov.in/asrpro/) for predicting abiotic SRGs and proteins.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".