2016
DOI: 10.1109/tcbb.2015.2505286
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Sequence-Based Dynamic Ensemble Learning System for Protein Ligand-Binding Site Prediction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 40 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…One reason is that the TargetS training used a high threshold for ligand binding and spatial clustering, which eliminated many of positive binding residues and thus decreased the sensitivity of the predictions. There are other sequence-based methods that were designed for generic ligand binding site predictions based on dynamic ensemble learning, such as LigandRFs (Chen et al, 2014) and LigandDSES (Chen et al, 2016). In addition to the different feature selection and training processes, one of the major distinctions of IonSeq, in comparison to these generic binding modeling methods, is that IonSeq focuses on a set of small metal and radical ion ligands, which allows a ligand-specific training to enhance the specificity and accuracy of training models.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ligand-specific Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…One reason is that the TargetS training used a high threshold for ligand binding and spatial clustering, which eliminated many of positive binding residues and thus decreased the sensitivity of the predictions. There are other sequence-based methods that were designed for generic ligand binding site predictions based on dynamic ensemble learning, such as LigandRFs (Chen et al, 2014) and LigandDSES (Chen et al, 2016). In addition to the different feature selection and training processes, one of the major distinctions of IonSeq, in comparison to these generic binding modeling methods, is that IonSeq focuses on a set of small metal and radical ion ligands, which allows a ligand-specific training to enhance the specificity and accuracy of training models.…”
Section: Comparison With Other Ligand-specific Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, accurate identification of the protein-ion-binding sites is important for understanding the mechanism of protein function and for new drug discovery. Many computational methods have been proposed in the last two decades for predicting general ligand-protein binding sites, which can be roughly grouped into two categories of sequencebased (Capra and Singh, 2007;Chen et al, 2014Chen et al, , 2016Magliery and Regan, 2005;Rausell et al, 2010) and structure-based (Brylinski and Skolnick, 2008;Capra et al, 2009;Hendlich et al, 1997;Laskowski, 1995;Roche et al, 2011;Roy and Zhang, 2012;Wass et al, 2010;Yang et al, 2013b) approaches. The sequence-based methods mostly rely on residue conservation analyses under the assumption that ligand-binding residues are functionally important and therefore should be conserved in the evolution.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Protein sequence profiles are always obtained by a BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) program, such as the commonly-used program of PSI-BLAST (Position-Specific Iterative Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) [ 33 ]. Therefore, for the residue of one protein sequence, the multiplication of the sequence profile of residue and one physicochemical amino acid property can represent the statistical evolution of the amino acid property [ 34 , 35 , 36 ], i.e., , where and are both vectors of . The multiplication for residue results in a set of 20 numerical vectors .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves and area under ROC curve (AUC) values can be also used as evaluation criteria. Among them, F1, MCC and AUC are the important metrics to comprehensively evaluate models [33,34]. In this study, confusion matrix was adopted to calculate evaluation index [35].…”
Section: Evaluation Criteriamentioning
confidence: 99%