4.7 Article

Application of learning to rank to protein remote homology detection

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 31, 期 21, 页码 3492-3498

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btv413

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61300112, 61272383]
  2. Scientific Research Foundation for the Returned Overseas Chinese Scholars
  3. State Education Ministry
  4. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2014A030313695]
  5. Strategic Emerging Industry Development Special Funds of Shenzhen [JCYJ20140508161040764]
  6. Shenzhen Municipal Science and Technology Innovation Council [CXZZ20140904154910774]
  7. National High Technology Research and Development Program of China (863 Program) [2015AA015405]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Protein remote homology detection is one of the fundamental problems in computational biology, aiming to find protein sequences in a database of known structures that are evolutionarily related to a given query protein. Some computational methods treat this problem as a ranking problem and achieve the state-of-the-art performance, such as PSI-BLAST, HHblits and ProtEmbed. This raises the possibility to combine these methods to improve the predictive performance. In this regard, we are to propose a new computational method called ProtDec-LTR for protein remote homology detection, which is able to combine various ranking methods in a supervised manner via using the Learning to Rank (LTR) algorithm derived from natural language processing. Results: Experimental results on a widely used benchmark dataset showed that ProtDec-LTR can achieve an ROC1 score of 0.8442 and an ROC50 score of 0.9023 outperforming all the individual predictors and some state-of-the-art methods. These results indicate that it is correct to treat protein remote homology detection as a ranking problem, and predictive performance improvement can be achieved by combining different ranking approaches in a supervised manner via using LTR.

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

4.7
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