3.8 Article

Prediction of PK-specific phosphorylation site based on information entropy

期刊

SCIENCE IN CHINA SERIES C-LIFE SCIENCES
卷 51, 期 1, 页码 12-20

出版社

SCIENCE PRESS
DOI: 10.1007/s11427-008-0012-1

关键词

phosphorylation prediction; information entropy; bioinformatics

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

QPhosphorylation is a crucial way to control the activity of proteins in many eukaryotic organisms in vivo. Experimental methods to determine phosphorylation sites in substrates are usually restricted by the in vitro condition of enzymes and very intensive in time and labor. Although some in silico methods and web servers have been introduced for automatic detection of phosphorylation sites, sophisticated methods are still in urgent demand to further improve prediction performances. Protein primary sequences can help predict phosphorylation sites catalyzed by different protein kinase and most computational approaches use a short local peptide to make prediction. However, the useful information may be lost if only the conservative residues that are not close to the phosphorylation site are considered in prediction, which would hamper the prediction results. A novel prediction method named IEPP (Information-Entropy based Phosphorylation Prediction) is presented in this paper for automatic detection of potential phosphorylation sites. In prediction, the sites around the phosphorylation sites are selected or excluded by their entropy values. The algorithm was compared with other methods such as GSP and PPSP on the ABL, MAPK and PKA PK families. The superior prediction accuracies were obtained in various measurements such as sensitivity (Sn) and specificity (Sp). Furthermore, compared with some online prediction web servers on the new discovered phosphorylation sites, IEPP also yielded the best performance. IEPP is another useful computational resource for identification of PK-specific phosphorylation sites and it also has the advantages of simpleness, efficiency and convenience.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据