Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37863385›Full record

ReviewGenomics, proteomics & bioinformatics2023

A Review of Machine Learning and Algorithmic Methods for Protein Phosphorylation Site Prediction.

Farzaneh Esmaili, Mahdi Pourmirzaei, Shahin Ramazi, Seyedehsamaneh Shojaeilangari, Elham Yavari

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genomics, proteomics & bioinformatics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Large language models for bioinformatics.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2026
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Kinase-substrate prediction using an autoregressive model.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Interaction of Soybean (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
  18. Review
  19. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Farzaneh EsmailiDepartment of Information Technology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran.
Mahdi PourmirzaeiDepartment of Information Technology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran.
Shahin RamaziDepartment of Biophysics, Faculty of Biological Sciences, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran. Electronic address: s.ramazi@modares.ac.ir.
Seyedehsamaneh ShojaeilangariBiomedical Engineering Group, Department of Electrical Engineering and Information Technology, Iranian Research Organization for Science and Technology (IROST), Tehran 33535-111, Iran.
Elham YavariDepartment of Information Technology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran 14115-111, Iran.
Tarbiat Modares University · IRIranian Research Organization for Science and Technology · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Post-translational modifications (PTMs) have key roles in extending the functional diversity of proteins and, as a result, regulating diverse cellular processes in prokaryotic and eukaryotic organisms. Phosphorylation modification is a vital PTM that occurs in most proteins and plays a significant role in many biological processes. Disorders in the phosphorylation process lead to multiple diseases, including neurological disorders and cancers. The purpose of this review is to organize this body of knowledge associated with phosphorylation site (p-site) prediction to facilitate future research in this field. At first, we comprehensively review all related databases and introduce all steps regarding dataset creation, data preprocessing, and method evaluation in p-site prediction. Next, we investigate p-site prediction methods, which are divided into two computational groups: algorithmic and machine learning (ML). Additionally, it is shown that there are basically two main approaches for p-site prediction by ML: conventional and end-to-end deep learning methods, both of which are given an overview. Moreover, this review introduces the most important feature extraction techniques, which have mostly been used in p-site prediction. Finally, we create three test sets from new proteins related to the released version of the database of protein post-translational modifications (dbPTM) in 2022 based on general and human species. Evaluating online p-site prediction tools on newly added proteins introduced in the dbPTM 2022 release, distinct from those in the dbPTM 2019 release, reveals their limitations. In other words, the actual performance of these online p-site prediction tools on unseen proteins is notably lower than the results reported in their respective research papers.

Indexed as

Machine LearningProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalAlgorithmsAnimalsComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinHumansPhosphorylationProteinsProteinsDatabaseDeep learningMachine learningPhosphorylationPost-translational modification

Identifiers

PMID37863385
PMCPMC11082408
OpenAlexW4387767260

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.