Cited by 242Machine Learning in BioinformaticsBioinformatics and Genomic NetworksProtein Structure and Dynamics

Improved prediction of protein–protein interactions using novel negative samples, features, and an ensemble classifier

Wei, Leyi, Xing, Pengwei, Zeng, Jiancang, Chen, JinXiu, Su, Ran, Guo, Fei·2017·Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.artmed.2017.03.001

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 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