Protein–Protein Interaction Networks Derived from Classical and Machine Learning-Based Natural Language Processing Tools

IF 3.8 2区 生物学 Q1 BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS
David J. Degnan, Clayton W. Strauch, Moses Y. Obiri, Erik D. VonKaenel, Grace S. Kim, James D. Kershaw, David L. Novelli, Karl TL Pazdernik and Lisa M. Bramer*, 
{"title":"Protein–Protein Interaction Networks Derived from Classical and Machine Learning-Based Natural Language Processing Tools","authors":"David J. Degnan,&nbsp;Clayton W. Strauch,&nbsp;Moses Y. Obiri,&nbsp;Erik D. VonKaenel,&nbsp;Grace S. Kim,&nbsp;James D. Kershaw,&nbsp;David L. Novelli,&nbsp;Karl TL Pazdernik and Lisa M. Bramer*,&nbsp;","doi":"10.1021/acs.jproteome.4c0053510.1021/acs.jproteome.4c00535","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p >The study of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) provides insight into various biological mechanisms, including the binding of antibodies to antigens, enzymes to inhibitors or promoters, and receptors to ligands. Recent studies of PPIs have led to significant biological breakthroughs. For example, the study of PPIs involved in the human:SARS-CoV-2 viral infection mechanism aided in the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Though several databases exist for the manual curation of PPI networks, text mining methods have been routinely demonstrated as useful alternatives for newly studied or understudied species, where databases are incomplete. Here, the relationship extraction performance of several open-source classical text processing, machine learning (ML)-based natural language processing (NLP), and large language model (LLM)-based NLP tools was compared. Overall, our results indicated that networks derived from classical methods tend to have high true positive rates at the expense of having overconnected networks, ML-based NLP methods have lower true positive rates but networks with the closest structures to the target network, and LLM-based NLP methods tend to exist between the two other approaches, with variable performances. The selection of a specific NLP approach should be tied to the needs of a study and text availability, as models varied in performance due to the amount of text provided.</p>","PeriodicalId":48,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Proteome Research","volume":"23 12","pages":"5395–5404 5395–5404"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Proteome Research","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.jproteome.4c00535","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"BIOCHEMICAL RESEARCH METHODS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The study of protein–protein interactions (PPIs) provides insight into various biological mechanisms, including the binding of antibodies to antigens, enzymes to inhibitors or promoters, and receptors to ligands. Recent studies of PPIs have led to significant biological breakthroughs. For example, the study of PPIs involved in the human:SARS-CoV-2 viral infection mechanism aided in the development of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Though several databases exist for the manual curation of PPI networks, text mining methods have been routinely demonstrated as useful alternatives for newly studied or understudied species, where databases are incomplete. Here, the relationship extraction performance of several open-source classical text processing, machine learning (ML)-based natural language processing (NLP), and large language model (LLM)-based NLP tools was compared. Overall, our results indicated that networks derived from classical methods tend to have high true positive rates at the expense of having overconnected networks, ML-based NLP methods have lower true positive rates but networks with the closest structures to the target network, and LLM-based NLP methods tend to exist between the two other approaches, with variable performances. The selection of a specific NLP approach should be tied to the needs of a study and text availability, as models varied in performance due to the amount of text provided.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Proteome Research
Journal of Proteome Research 生物-生化研究方法
CiteScore
9.00
自引率
4.50%
发文量
251
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Journal of Proteome Research publishes content encompassing all aspects of global protein analysis and function, including the dynamic aspects of genomics, spatio-temporal proteomics, metabonomics and metabolomics, clinical and agricultural proteomics, as well as advances in methodology including bioinformatics. The theme and emphasis is on a multidisciplinary approach to the life sciences through the synergy between the different types of "omics".
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信