2020
DOI: 10.1109/tcbb.2018.2890261
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of DNA-Binding Residues in Local Segments of Protein Sequences with Fuzzy Cognitive Maps

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
17
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(17 citation statements)
references
References 81 publications
0
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…In this study, we make an attempt to train our models on large set of proteins. Initially, we obtained 1057 and 360 protein sequences from recently published articles hybridNAP [49] and proNA2020 [34]. In order to create dataset of redundant RNA-binding protein, we removing the redundant sequences using CD-HIT at 30%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this study, we make an attempt to train our models on large set of proteins. Initially, we obtained 1057 and 360 protein sequences from recently published articles hybridNAP [49] and proNA2020 [34]. In order to create dataset of redundant RNA-binding protein, we removing the redundant sequences using CD-HIT at 30%.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This method predicts relative solvent accessibility from a single sequence (without alignment), and thus it much faster than the other predictors that require calculation of multiple sequence alignment. It also provides accurate prediction, which is why it was recently used in related studies (Zhang et al, 2017; Amirkhani et al, 2018; Meng and Kurgan, 2018). We convert the numeric relative solvent accessibility of residues into a binary annotation (solvent exposed vs .…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In some of the methods, such as BindN-RF [27], DBindR [41], BindN+ [26], DNABR [42], and PDNASite [43], the performance is relatively higher, which could be due to the overfitting of the model, since the used datasets are smaller in size. On the other hand, recent methods like TargetDNA [44], HybridNAP [28], funDNApred [45], iProDNA-CapsNet [46], and ProNA2020 [30] have used larger datasets as compared to the previous methods; the DBPred had used the equivalent dataset to the recently developed methods and outperformed them. As shown in Table 5, most methods have provided the webserver facility, but many are non-functional now.…”
Section: Comparison With the Existing Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%