4.7 Article

iQSP: A Sequence-Based Tool for the Prediction and Analysis of Quorum Sensing Peptides via Chou's 5-Steps Rule and Informative Physicochemical Properties

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms21010075

关键词

quorum sensing peptides; physicochemical properties; support vector machine; random forest; machine learning; classification

资金

  1. TRF [MRG6180226]
  2. College of Arts, Media and Technology, Chiang Mai University
  3. TRF Research Career Development Grant from the Thailand Research Fund the O ffice of Higher Education Commission [RSA6280075]
  4. Mahidol University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding of quorum-sensing peptides (QSPs) in their functional mechanism plays an essential role in finding new opportunities to combat bacterial infections by designing drugs. With the avalanche of the newly available peptide sequences in the post-genomic age, it is highly desirable to develop a computational model for efficient, rapid and high-throughput QSP identification purely based on the peptide sequence information alone. Although, few methods have been developed for predicting QSPs, their prediction accuracy and interpretability still requires further improvements. Thus, in this work, we proposed an accurate sequence-based predictor (called iQSP) and a set of interpretable rules (called IR-QSP) for predicting and analyzing QSPs. In iQSP, we utilized a powerful support vector machine (SVM) cooperating with 18 informative features from physicochemical properties (PCPs). Rigorous independent validation test showed that iQSP achieved maximum accuracy and MCC of 93.00% and 0.86, respectively. Furthermore, a set of interpretable rules IR-QSP was extracted by using random forest model and the 18 informative PCPs. Finally, for the convenience of experimental scientists, the iQSP web server was established and made freely available online. It is anticipated that iQSP will become a useful tool or at least as a complementary existing method for predicting and analyzing QSPs.

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

4.7
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