↓ Skip to main content

Natural language processing in text mining for structural modeling of protein complexes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
27 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
citeulike
2 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Natural language processing in text mining for structural modeling of protein complexes
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, March 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12859-018-2079-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Varsha D. Badal, Petras J. Kundrotas, Ilya A. Vakser

Abstract

Structural modeling of protein-protein interactions produces a large number of putative configurations of the protein complexes. Identification of the near-native models among them is a serious challenge. Publicly available results of biomedical research may provide constraints on the binding mode, which can be essential for the docking. Our text-mining (TM) tool, which extracts binding site residues from the PubMed abstracts, was successfully applied to protein docking (Badal et al., PLoS Comput Biol, 2015; 11: e1004630). Still, many extracted residues were not relevant to the docking. We present an extension of the TM tool, which utilizes natural language processing (NLP) for analyzing the context of the residue occurrence. The procedure was tested using generic and specialized dictionaries. The results showed that the keyword dictionaries designed for identification of protein interactions are not adequate for the TM prediction of the binding mode. However, our dictionary designed to distinguish keywords relevant to the protein binding sites led to considerable improvement in the TM performance. We investigated the utility of several methods of context analysis, based on dissection of the sentence parse trees. The machine learning-based NLP filtered the pool of the mined residues significantly more efficiently than the rule-based NLP. Constraints generated by NLP were tested in docking of unbound proteins from the DOCKGROUND X-ray benchmark set 4. The output of the global low-resolution docking scan was post-processed, separately, by constraints from the basic TM, constraints re-ranked by NLP, and the reference constraints. The quality of a match was assessed by the interface root-mean-square deviation. The results showed significant improvement of the docking output when using the constraints generated by the advanced TM with NLP. The basic TM procedure for extracting protein-protein binding site residues from the PubMed abstracts was significantly advanced by the deep parsing (NLP techniques for contextual analysis) in purging of the initial pool of the extracted residues. Benchmarking showed a substantial increase of the docking success rate based on the constraints generated by the advanced TM with NLP.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 71 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 12 17%
Student > Master 11 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 13%
Researcher 6 8%
Other 3 4%
Other 9 13%
Unknown 21 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Computer Science 11 15%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 10 14%
Engineering 7 10%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Other 14 20%
Unknown 21 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2019.
All research outputs
#7,035,350
of 23,025,074 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#2,706
of 7,316 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,932
of 332,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#40
of 111 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,025,074 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,316 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 332,016 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 111 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.