2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.neucom.2016.03.025
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identification of DNA binding proteins using evolutionary profiles position specific scoring matrix

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
5

Citation Types

0
28
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 64 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 62 publications
0
28
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The existing SVM-based predictive methods differ in encoding schemes for protein sequences. A great number of sequence features have been applied to represent protein sequences into fixed-length numeric vectors, such as amino acid composition (AAC) [17], dipeptide composition [18], pseudo-AAC [19][20][21][22], position-specific score matrix (PSSM) profile [23][24][25][26][27], predicted secondary structure [28], and hidden Markov model (HMM) profile [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The existing SVM-based predictive methods differ in encoding schemes for protein sequences. A great number of sequence features have been applied to represent protein sequences into fixed-length numeric vectors, such as amino acid composition (AAC) [17], dipeptide composition [18], pseudo-AAC [19][20][21][22], position-specific score matrix (PSSM) profile [23][24][25][26][27], predicted secondary structure [28], and hidden Markov model (HMM) profile [29].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Kumar et al [24] first adopted the PSSM profile to identify DBPs and constructed an SVM model called DNAbinder. Waris et al [25] further developed a classifier by integrating the PSSM profile and other two protein representations, i.e., dipeptide composition and split AAC. Besides, the method of Wang et al [26] applied the discrete cosine transform and the discrete wavelet transform to compress the PSSM profile and achieved excellent prediction performance.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In contrast, the sequence-based methods have become more popular since sequence features are usually easier to extract and more convenient to use. These sequence-based features of proteins are classified into three types: (1) composition-based features, such as amino acid composition (AAC) [9], dipeptide composition [10], and pseudo AAC [11][12][13]; (2) autocorrelation-based features, including autocross covariance [14,15], normalized Moreau-Broto autocorrelation [8], and physicochemical distance transformation [16]; and (3) profile-based features, including position-specific score matrix (PSSM) [17][18][19] and hidden markov model (HMM) [20]. Generally, autocorrelation-based features perform better than composition-based features, and profile-based features outperform autocorrelation-based features [21].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, Kumar et al initially adopted evolutionary information embedded in the PSSM profile to identify DBPs and achieved a well-performed result [17]. Waris et al produced an ingenious classifier by integrating the PSSM profile with dipeptide composition and split AAC [18]. Zou et al proposed a fuzzy kernel ridge regression model to predict DBPs based on multiview sequence features [22].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Until now, several groups have published different studies based on either experimental or computational identification of DNA-binding proteins [1,[6][7][8][9][10][11] as well as residues in these proteins [12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23]. However, the usage of experimental approaches for the determination of binding sites is still challenging since they are often demanding, relatively expensive, and time-consuming.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%