Affordable Access

Access to the full text

Classifying G-protein coupled receptors with support vector machines.

Authors
Type
Published Article
Journal
Bioinformatics
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Publication Date
Jan 26, 2002
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
147–147
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/18.1.147
PMID: 11836223
Source
UCSC Bioengineering biomedical-ucsc
License
Green

Abstract

Motivation: The enormous amount of protein sequence data uncovered by genome research has increased the demand for computer software that can automate the recognition of new proteins. We discuss the relative merits of various automated methods for recognizing G-Protein Coupled Receptors (GPCRs), a superfamily of cell membrane proteins. GPCRs are found in a wide range of organisms and are central to a cellular signalling network that regulates many basic physiological processes. They are the focus of a significant amount of current pharmaceutical research because they play a key role in many diseases. However, their tertiary structures remain largely unsolved. The methods described in this paper use only primary sequence information to make their predictions. We compare a simple nearest neighbor approach (BLAST), methods based on multiple alignments generated by a statistical profile Hidden Markov Model (HMM), and methods, including Support Vector Machines (SVMs), that transform protein sequences into fixed-length feature vectors. Results: The last is the most computationally expensive method, but our experiments show that, for those interested in annotation-quality classification, the results are worth the effort. In two-fold cross-validation experiments testing recognition of GPCR subfamilies that bind a specific ligand (such as a histamine molecule), the errors per sequence at the Minimum Error Point (MEP) were 13.7% for multi-class SVMs, 17.1% for our SVMtree method of hierarchical multi-class SVM classification, 25.5% for BLAST, 30% for profile HMMs, and 49% for classification based on nearest neighbor feature vector Kernel Nearest Neighbor (kernNN). The percentage of true positives recognized before the first false positive was 65% for both SVM methods, 13% for BLAST, 5% for profile HMMs and 4% for kernNN.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times