2020
DOI: 10.1101/2020.01.06.895755
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

RFDTI: Using Rotation Forest with Feature Weighted for Drug-Target Interaction Prediction from Drug Molecular Structure and Protein Sequence

Abstract: The identification and prediction of Drug-Target Interactions (DTIs) is the basis for screening drug candidates, which plays a vital role in the development of innovative drugs. However, due to the time-consuming and high cost constraints of biological experimental methods, traditional drug target identification technologies are often difficult to develop on a large scale. Therefore, in silico methods are urgently needed to predict drug-target interactions in a genome-wide manner. In this article, we design a … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
1
1

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Until now, numerous computational methods have been proposed for predicting the DTI. In our study, we made a performance comparison between the proposed method and the other four existing methods that include NetCBP [ 47 ], Mousavian et al's [ 48 ], Li et al's [ 21 ], and RFDTI [ 49 ]; these methods were also employed the five-fold cross-validation on enzyme , ion channel , GPCRs , and nuclear receptor dataset, respectively. The differences of them were the different feature extractions and classifiers adopted.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Until now, numerous computational methods have been proposed for predicting the DTI. In our study, we made a performance comparison between the proposed method and the other four existing methods that include NetCBP [ 47 ], Mousavian et al's [ 48 ], Li et al's [ 21 ], and RFDTI [ 49 ]; these methods were also employed the five-fold cross-validation on enzyme , ion channel , GPCRs , and nuclear receptor dataset, respectively. The differences of them were the different feature extractions and classifiers adopted.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…From Table 6, we can see that the average results of the SVM classifier are lower than the performance of the proposed method. The prediction result also shows that the performance of the RF classifier is better than the performance [21], and RFDTI [49]; these methods were also employed the five-fold cross-validation on enzyme, ion channel, GPCRs, and nuclear receptor dataset, respectively. The differences of them were the different feature extractions and classifiers adopted.…”
Section: Comparison Between Rf Classifier and Svm Classifiermentioning
confidence: 99%