| Literature DB >> 22408447 |
Xiaowei Zhao1,2,3, Zhiqiang Ma1,2,3, Minghao Yin1,2.
Abstract
Antifreeze proteins (AFPs) are ice-binding proteins. Accurate identification of new AFPs is important in understanding ice-protein interactions and creating novel ice-binding domains in other proteins. In this paper, an accurate method, called AFP_PSSM, has been developed for predicting antifreeze proteins using a support vector machine (SVM) and position specific scoring matrix (PSSM) profiles. This is the first study in which evolutionary information in the form of PSSM profiles has been successfully used for predicting antifreeze proteins. Tested by 10-fold cross validation and independent test, the accuracy of the proposed method reaches 82.67% for the training dataset and 93.01% for the testing dataset, respectively. These results indicate that our predictor is a useful tool for predicting antifreeze proteins. A web server (AFP_PSSM) that implements the proposed predictor is freely available.Entities:
Keywords: antifreeze proteins; evolutionary information; position specific scoring matrix; support vector machine; web sever
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22408447 PMCID: PMC3292016 DOI: 10.3390/ijms13022196
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Mol Sci ISSN: 1422-0067 Impact factor: 6.208
Figure 1Schematic representation of transformation each protein sequence into PSSM-400 matrix.
Figure 2The workflow of the AFP_PSSM predictor.
Figure 3The top page of the AFP_PSSM web server [28].
Figure 4The prediction results by AFP-PSSM for the query protein 1 in the example and note window.
The accuracies and Area Under Curve (AUC) of the four support vector machine (SVM) models developed using different features. These models are trained and tested on the training dataset.
| Method | Amino Acids | Dipeptides | PseAAC | PSSM-400 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acc | 80.83% | 78.83% | 56.18% | 82.67% |
| AUC | 0.912 | 0.904 | 0.761 | 0.926 |
Figure 5The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves calculated from the ten-fold cross validation of the four different models.
Comparison with AFP-Pred on the test dataset.
| Method | Sn (%) | Sp (%) | Acc (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| AFP-Pred [ | 84.67 | 82.32 | 83.38 |
| AFP_PSSM | 75.89 | 93.28 | 93.01 |