Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33316035›Full record

ReviewBriefings in bioinformatics2021

Large-scale comparative review and assessment of computational methods for anti-cancer peptide identification.

Xiao Liang, Fuyi Li, Jinxiang Chen, Junlong Li, Hao Wu, Shuqin Li, Jiangning Song, Quanzhong Liu

Open access · greenAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

34 citing papers in PubMed, 104 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Efficient Mining of Anticancer Peptides from Gut Metagenome.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Xiao LiangCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Fuyi LiMonash Biomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Jinxiang ChenCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Junlong LiCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Hao WuCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Shuqin LiCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Jiangning SongMonash Biomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Quanzhong LiuCollege of Information Engineering, Northwest A&F University, Yangling, 712100, China.
Northwest A&F University · CNMonash University · AUUniversity of Melbourne · AU

Funding

New Tricks for 'Old' Drugs: PK/PD of Polymyxin Nonantibiotic CombinationsR01AI111965 · NIAID · MONASH UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JIAN · 2014 to 2018
$4.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI111965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anti-cancer peptides (ACPs) are known as potential therapeutics for cancer. Due to their unique ability to target cancer cells without affecting healthy cells directly, they have been extensively studied. Many peptide-based drugs are currently evaluated in the preclinical and clinical trials. Accurate identification of ACPs has received considerable attention in recent years; as such, a number of machine learning-based methods for in silico identification of ACPs have been developed. These methods promote the research on the mechanism of ACPs therapeutics against cancer to some extent. There is a vast difference in these methods in terms of their training/testing datasets, machine learning algorithms, feature encoding schemes, feature selection methods and evaluation strategies used. Therefore, it is desirable to summarize the advantages and disadvantages of the existing methods, provide useful insights and suggestions for the development and improvement of novel computational tools to characterize and identify ACPs. With this in mind, we firstly comprehensively investigate 16 state-of-the-art predictors for ACPs in terms of their core algorithms, feature encoding schemes, performance evaluation metrics and webserver/software usability. Then, comprehensive performance assessment is conducted to evaluate the robustness and scalability of the existing predictors using a well-prepared benchmark dataset. We provide potential strategies for the model performance improvement. Moreover, we propose a novel ensemble learning framework, termed ACPredStackL, for the accurate identification of ACPs. ACPredStackL is developed based on the stacking ensemble strategy combined with SVM, Naïve Bayesian, lightGBM and KNN. Empirical benchmarking experiments against the state-of-the-art methods demonstrate that ACPredStackL achieves a comparative performance for predicting ACPs. The webserver and source code of ACPredStackL is freely available at http://bigdata.biocie.cn/ACPredStackL/ and https://github.com/liangxiaoq/ACPredStackL, respectively.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsMachine LearningNeoplasmsSoftwareHumansPeptidesAntineoplastic AgentsPeptidesanti-cancer peptidesbioinformaticsensemble learningperformance assessmentpredictionsequence analysis

Identifiers

PMID33316035
PMCPMC8294543
OpenAlexW3110828293

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.