Improved prediction of protein–protein interactions using novel negative samples, features, and an ensemble classifier
Abstract
Computational methods are employed in bioinformatics to predict protein-protein interactions (PPIs). PPIs and protein-protein non-interactions (PPNIs) display different levels of development, and the number of PPIs is considerably greater than that of PPNIs. This significant difference in the number of PPIs and PPNIs increases the cost of constructing a balanced dataset. PPIs can be classified as either physical or genetic. However, ready-made PPNI databases were proven only to have no physical interactions and were not proven to have no genetic interactions. Hence, ready-made PPNI databases contain false negative non-interactions. In this study, two PPNI datasets were artificially generated from a PPI database. In contrast to various traditional PPI feature extraction methods based on sequential information, two types of novel feature extraction methods were proposed. One is based on secondary structure information, and the other is based on the physicochemical properties of proteins. The experimental results of the RandomPairs dataset validate the efficiency and effectiveness of the proposed prediction model. These results reveal the potential of constructing a PPI negative dataset to reduce false negatives. Related datasets, tools, and source codes are accessible at http://lab.malab.cn/soft/PPIPre/PPIPre.html.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The metrics are used frequently in evaluating performance.
“The metrics are used in evaluating the performance frequently [64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72].”
From An Efficient Classifier for Alzheimer’s Disease Genes Identification (2018) · cites this paper as [68]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 49 · Cited by 242
- Authors
- Wei, L., Xing, P., Zeng, J., Chen, J., Su, R., & Guo, F.
- Affiliations
- Tianjin University (CN)
- Xiamen University (CN)
- Corresponding author
- Guo, Fei
- Venue
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2017-11
- Volume
- 83
- Pages
- 67-74
- ISSN
- 0933-3657 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2592644437
- Cited by
- 242
- References
- 49
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 41 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 13
- FWCI
- 13.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Artificial Intelligence in Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Natural Science Foundation of China (61402326)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
- Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
- Keywords
- protein-protein interaction prediction, negative sample generation, feature extraction, physicochemical properties, ensemble classifiers
- MeSH terms
- Amino Acid Sequence, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Proteins, Structure-Activity Relationship, Reproducibility of Results, Protein Structure, Secondary, Computational Biology, Databases, Protein, Protein Interaction Maps
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review