4.7 Article

Bacteria-Specific Feature Selection for Enhanced Antimicrobial Peptide Activity Predictions Using Machine-Learning Methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There are different types of short peptide molecules called antimicrobial peptides (AMPs) that are produced by living organisms as a response to infections. Machine-learning methods have been used to predict the activities of AMPs against bacteria, but they typically do not consider specific features of the bacteria. To address this, a new computational approach was developed to train supervised machine-learning models using data associated with peptides targeting E. coli bacteria. The study provides recommendations for designing more efficient antibacterial drug therapies.
There are several classes of short peptide molecules, known as antimicrobial peptides (AMPs), which are produced during the immune responses of living organisms against various infections. In recent years, substantial progress has been achieved in applying machine-learning methods to predict the activities of AMPs against bacteria. In most investigated cases, however, the outcome is not bacterium-specific since the specific features of bacteria, such as chemical composition and structure of membranes, are not considered. To overcome this problem, we developed a new computational approach that allowed us to train several supervised machine-learning models using a specific set of data associated with peptides targeting E. coli bacteria. LASSO regression and Support Vector Machine techniques have been utilized to select, among more than 1500 physicochemical descriptors, the most important features that can be used to classify a peptide as antimicrobial or ineffective against E. coli. We then performed the classification of active versus inactive AMPs using the Support Vector classifiers, Logistic Regression, and Random Forest methods. This computational study allows us to make recommendations of how to design more efficient antibacterial drug therapies.

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