4.7 Article

Machine learning empowers phosphoproteome prediction in cancers

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 36, 期 3, 页码 859-864

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz639

关键词

-

资金

  1. CAREER: On-line Service for Predicting Protein Phosphorylation Dynamics Under Unseen Perturbations NSF [NSF-US14-PAF07599]
  2. American Heart Association and Amazon Web Services 3.0 Data Grant Portfolio: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning Training Grants [19AMTG34850176]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Reversible protein phosphorylation is an essential post-translational modification regulating protein functions and signaling pathways in many cellular processes. Aberrant activation of signaling pathways often contributes to cancer development and progression. The mass spectrometry-based phosphoproteomics technique is a powerful tool to investigate the site-level phosphorylation of the proteome in a global fashion, paving the way for understanding the regulatory mechanisms underlying cancers. However, this approach is time-consuming and requires expensive instruments, specialized expertise and a large amount of starting material. An alternative in silico approach is predicting the phosphoproteomic profiles of cancer patients from the available proteomic, transcriptomic and genomic data. Results: Here, we present a winning algorithm in the 2017 NCI-CPTAC DREAM Proteogenomics Challenge for predicting phosphorylation levels of the proteome across cancer patients. We integrate four components into our algorithm, including (i) baseline correlations between protein and phosphoprotein abundances, (ii) universal protein-protein interactions, (iii) shareable regulatory information across cancer tissues and (iv) associations among multi-phosphorylation sites of the same protein. When tested on a large held-out testing dataset of 108 breast and 62 ovarian cancer samples, our method ranked first in both cancer tissues, demonstrating its robustness and generalization ability.

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