4.4 Article

QSAR Model for Alignment-Free Prediction of Human Breast Cancer Biomarkers Based on Electrostatic Potentials of Protein Pseudofolding HP-Lattice Networks

期刊

JOURNAL OF COMPUTATIONAL CHEMISTRY
卷 29, 期 16, 页码 2613-2622

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jcc.21016

关键词

biomarkers; human breast cancer; protein sequence; Markov chains; HP lattice; complex networks; graph theory; QSAR; linear discriminant analysis; sequence alignment; electrostatic potential

资金

  1. Xunta de Galicia
  2. Ministerio de Sanidad Y Consumo [P1061457]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Network theory allows relationships to be established between numerical parameters that describe the molecular structure of genes and proteins and their biological properties. These models can be considered as quantitative structure-activity relationships (QSAR) for biopolymers. The work described here concerns the first QSAR model for 122 proteins that are associated with human breast cancer (HBC), as identified experimentally by Sjoblom et al. (Science 2006, 314, 268) from over 10,000 human proteins. In this study, the 122 proteins related to HBC (HBCp) and a control group of 200 proteins that are not related to HBC (non-HBCp) were forced to fold in an HP lattice network. From these networks a series of electrostatic potential parameters (xi(k)) was calculated to describe each protein numerically. The use of xi(k) as an entry point to linear discriminant analysis led to a QSAR model to discriminate between HBCp and non-HBCp, and this model could help to predict the involvement of a certain gene and/or protein in HBC. In addition, validation procedures were carried out on the model and these included an external prediction series and evaluation of an additional series of 1000 non-HBCp. In all cases good levels of classification were obtained with values above 80%. This study represents the first example of a QSAR model for the computational chemistry inspired search of potential HBC protein biomarkers. (c) 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据