2021
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-021-82513-9
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Improved prediction and characterization of anticancer activities of peptides using a novel flexible scoring card method

Abstract: As anticancer peptides (ACPs) have attracted great interest for cancer treatment, several approaches based on machine learning have been proposed for ACP identification. Although existing methods have afforded high prediction accuracies, however such models are using a large number of descriptors together with complex ensemble approaches that consequently leads to low interpretability and thus poses a challenge for biologists and biochemists. Therefore, it is desirable to develop a simple, interpretable and ef… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
53
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(53 citation statements)
references
References 65 publications
0
53
0
Order By: Relevance
“…We also compare ACP-MHCNN with several existing ACP identification methods on both main and alternate datasets used in 17 , and the results are shown in Table 12 . This comparison shows that ACPred-LAF 16 , iACP-FSCM 57 , and AntiCP-2.0 17 slightly outperforms ACP-MHCNN, and all outperform other existing methods by significant margin on these two specific datasets. It is worth noting that, since AntiCP-2.0 and all of the existing methods reported in Table 12 are traditional machine learning models while ACP-MHCNN is composed of several convolutional layers with much larger effective hypotheses space, the sizes of the training partitions of main and alternate datasets are the bottleneck for ACP-MHCNN when it comes to generalization capability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…We also compare ACP-MHCNN with several existing ACP identification methods on both main and alternate datasets used in 17 , and the results are shown in Table 12 . This comparison shows that ACPred-LAF 16 , iACP-FSCM 57 , and AntiCP-2.0 17 slightly outperforms ACP-MHCNN, and all outperform other existing methods by significant margin on these two specific datasets. It is worth noting that, since AntiCP-2.0 and all of the existing methods reported in Table 12 are traditional machine learning models while ACP-MHCNN is composed of several convolutional layers with much larger effective hypotheses space, the sizes of the training partitions of main and alternate datasets are the bottleneck for ACP-MHCNN when it comes to generalization capability.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 85%
“…During the revision stage of this manuscript, Charoenkwan et al proposed a sequence-based method iACP-FSCM with an emphasis on model interpretability, where 11 local and global amino acid composition-based features were utilized with a weighted-sum-based prediction mechanism 16 . Furthermore, Agrawal et al proposed a sequence-based method AntiCP 2.0 along with two ACP identification datasets 17 .…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The SCM method has been demonstrated to perform admirably in terms of conceptual simplicity, ease of implementation and interpretability 16 , 18 , 36 39 . In 2012, Huang et al 19 firstly introduced the original SCM method.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Artificial Intelligence has made important progress toward the acceleration of research and development of novel bioactive natural compounds with industrial applications. This approach has been widely applied in different steps related to the virtual screening strategies, for example to predict some pharmacokinetic properties (Wei et al, 2017 ; Qiang et al, 2018 ) [e.g., penetration of compounds into the blood–brain barrier (Zhang et al, 2017 ; Dai et al, 2021 ) and cell membrane (Wei et al, 2017 ; Wolfe et al, 2018 )], compounds' side effects (Dimitri and Lió, 2017 ), their toxicity (Mayr et al, 2016 ; Pu et al, 2019 ; Zheng et al, 2020 ), molecular targets (Wang et al, 2013 ; Jeon et al, 2014 ), and their bioactivity (Li and Huang, 2012 ; Schaduangrat et al, 2019 ; Shoombuatong et al, 2019 ) [e.g., anti-tuberculosis (Gomes et al, 2017 ; Maia S. M. et al, 2020 ), anticancer (Charoenkwan et al, 2021 ), and insecticidal activities (Soares Rodrigues et al, 2021 )] as well as to identify the pan-assay interference compounds (PAINS), i.e., highly reactive and promiscuous molecules that are often false positives in high-throughput screening assays (Jasial et al, 2018 ). In some cases, the ML algorithms have been reported with superior efficiency and, thus, are more suitable to predict hit compounds from chemical libraries than are the traditional QSAR methods (Tsou et al, 2020 ).…”
Section: Computational Methods Applied In Virtual Screening Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%