4.3 Review

Comprehensive Review and Comparison of Anticancer Peptides Identification Models

Journal

CURRENT PROTEIN & PEPTIDE SCIENCE
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 201-210

Publisher

BENTHAM SCIENCE PUBL LTD
DOI: 10.2174/1389203721666200117162958

Keywords

Anticancer peptides; machine learning; feature representation; SVM; AAC; binary profiles; ACPs

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (the Joint Funds of Henan Province) [U1504605]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study provides a comprehensive evaluation of machine learning methods for ACPs prediction and a fair comparison of existing predictors. The Support Vector Machine-based model with features combination showed significant improvement in overall performance compared to other machine learning methods.
Anticancer peptides (ACPs) eliminate pathogenic bacteria and kill tumor cells, showing no hemolysis and no damages to normal human cells. This unique ability explores the possibility of ACPs as therapeutic delivery and its potential applications in clinical therapy. Identifying ACPs is one of the most fundamental and central problems in new antitumor drug research. During the past decades, a number of machine learning-based prediction tools have been developed to solve this important task. However, the predictions produced by various tools are difficult to quantify and compare. Therefore, in this article, a comprehensive review of existing machine learning methods for ACPs prediction and fair comparison of the predictors is provided. To evaluate current prediction tools, a comparative study was conducted and analyzed the existing ACPs predictor from the 10 public works of literature. The comparative results obtained suggest that the Support Vector Machine-based model with features combination provided significant improvement in the overall performance when compared to the other machine learning method-based prediction models.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available