4.5 Article

Improved protein secondary structure prediction using support vector machine with a new encoding scheme and an advanced tertiary classifier

期刊

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON NANOBIOSCIENCE
卷 3, 期 4, 页码 265-271

出版社

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TNB.2004.837906

关键词

binary classifier; BLOSUM62; encoding scheme; orthorgonal matrix; Position Specific Scoring Matrix (PSSM); support vector machine (SVM); tertiary classifier

资金

  1. NIGMS NIH HHS [P20 GM065762-01A1, R01 GM34766-17S1] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Prediction of protein secondary structures is an important problem in bioinformatics and has many applications. The recent trend of secondary structure prediction studies is mostly based on the neural network or the support vector machine (SVM). The SVM method is a comparatively new learning system which has mostly been used in pattern recognition problems. In this study, SVM is used as a machine learning tool for the prediction of secondary structure and several encoding schemes, including orthogonal matrix, hydrophobicity matrix, BLOSUM62 substitution matrix, and combined matrix of these, are applied and optimized to improve the prediction accuracy. Also, the optimal window length for six SVM binary classifiers is established by testing different window sizes and our new encoding scheme is tested based on this optimal window size via sevenfold cross validation tests. The results show 2% increase in the accuracy of the binary classifiers when compared with the instances in which the classical orthogonal matrix is used. Finally, to combine the results of the six SVM binary classifiers, a new tertiary classifier which combines the results of one-versus-one binary classifiers is introduced and the performance is compared with those of existing tertiary classifiers. According to the results, the Q(3) prediction accuracy of new tertiary classifier reaches 78.8% and this is better than the best result reported in the literature.

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

4.5
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