Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

An Improved Genetic with Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm Based on Ensemble Classification to Predict Protein–Protein Interaction

  • Published:
Wireless Personal Communications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Protein–protein interaction plays an important role in biological function. Though protein interaction and non-interaction is a broad field, PPI is considered more important than PPNI. The concentration of dataset with PPNI is also used to predict the protein–protein interaction. False negatives of non-interaction data have to be identified in the non-proven negative genetic interactions. A learning approach of ensemble selection is a “build and select” strategy, where multiple classifiers have to be trained. Diversity and accuracy of the multi-classifier have to be selected to find the solution. In this paper, PPNI datasets are identified from PPI dataset. Three levels of development have been considered such as, Dataset construction carried out by Negatome, Random pair and Recombine pair methods. Feature extraction and feature selection performance can be carried out by the way of N-Gram techniques. Ensemble classification is done by utilizing the classifiers such as Support Vector Machine, Decision Tree, Neural Network and Naive Bayes. For the enhanced optimization algorithm expressed through the search operation, Genetic-PSO algorithm is proposed. The result exposes the reduced false negatives with the process of dataset construction and the execution of the random pair dataset effectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Shatnawi, M. (2015). Review of Recent Protein-Protein Interaction Techniques, Emerging Trends in Computational biology, Bioinformatics and Systems Biology.

  2. Thanos, C. D., DeLano, W. L., & Wells, J. A. (2006). Hot-spot mimicry of a cytokine receptor by a small molecule. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America,103(42), 15422–15427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Agrawal, N. J., Helk, B., & Trout, B. L. (2014). A computational tool to predict the evolutionarily conserved protein–protein interaction hot-spot residues from the structure of the unbound protein. FEBS Letters,588, 326–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Planas-Iglesias, J., Bonet, J., García-García, J., Marín-López, M. A., Feliu, E., & Oliva, B. (2013). Understanding protein–protein interactions using local structural features. Journal of Molecular Biology,425, 1210–1224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wu, S., Shao, F., Sun, R., Sui, Y., Wang, Y., & Wang, J. (2014). Analysis of human genes with protein–protein interaction network for detecting disease genes. Physica A,398, 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Peleg, O., Choi, J.-M., & Shakhnovich, E. I. (2014). Evolution of specificity in protein-protein interactions. Biophysical Journal,107, 1686–1696.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sun, J.-T., Ao, B., Zhang, S., Bing, Z., & Yang, L. (2014). Evolving protein protein interaction networks: A model based on duplication and mutation at different rates. Journal of Theoretical Biology,350, 32–36.

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  8. Huang, Y.-A., You, Z.-H., Li, X., Chen, X., Hu, P., Li, S., et al. (2014). Construction of reliable protein–protein interaction networks using weighted sparse representation based classifier with pseudo substitution matrix representation features. Neurocomputing,218, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Qin, H., Lu, H. H. S., Wu, W. B., & Li, W.-H. (2003). Evolution of the yeast protein interaction network. Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences of the United States of America,100(22), 12820–12824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ito, T., Chiba, T., Ozawa, R., Yoshida, M., Hattori, M., & Sakaki, Y. (2001). Acomprehensive two-hybridanalysistoexploretheyeastproteininteractome. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,98(8), 4569–4574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Anne-Claude, G., Markus, B., Roland, K., et al. (2002). Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature,415(6868), 141–147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Yuen, H., Albrecht, G., Adrian, H., et al. (2002). Systematic identification of protein complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by mass spectrometry. Nature,415(6868), 180–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. De Las Rivas, J., & Fontanillo, C. (2012). Protein–protein interaction networks: Unravelling the wiring of molecular machines within the cell. Briefings in Functional Genomics:ls036.

  14. Liu, G.-H., Shen, H.-B., & Yu, D.-J. (2016). Prediction of protein–protein interaction sites with machine-learning-based data-cleaning and post-filtering procedures. Journal of Membrane Biology,249, 141–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Hayat, M., & Khan, A. (2011). Predicting membrane protein types by fusing composite protein sequence features into pseudo amino acid composition. Journal of Theoretical Biology,271, 10–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hayat, M., & Khan, A. (2013). WRF-TMH: Predicting transmembrane helix by fusing composition index and physicochemical properties of amino acids. AminoAcids,44, 1317–1328.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hayat, M., & Khan, A. (2013). Prediction of membrane protein types using pseudo-aminoacid composition and ensemble classification. International Journal of Comput and Electrical Engineering,5, 456.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Ofran, Y., & Rost, B. (2003). Predicted protein-protein interaction sites from local sequence information. FEBS Letters,544, 236–239. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0014-5793(03)00456-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Yan, C., Dobbs, D., & Honavar, V. (2004). A two-stage classifier for identification of protein-protein interface residues. Bioinformatics,20, i371–i378. https://doi.org/10.1093/bioinformatics/bth920.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Torchala, M., Moal, I. H., Chaleil, R. A. G., Fernandez-Recio, J., & Bates, P. A. (2013). Swarm-Dock: A server for flexible protein–protein docking. Bioinformatics,29, 807–809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Ghoorah, A. W., Devignes, M.-D., Smaïl-Tabbone, M., & Ritchie, D. W. (2011). Spatial clustering of protein binding sites for template based protein docking. Bioinformatics,27, 2820–2827.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Tuncbag, N., Gursoy, A., & Keskin, O. (2013). Identification of computational hotspots in protein interfaces: Combining solvent accessibility and inter-residue potentials improves the accuracy. Bioinformatics,25, 1513–1520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Grove, L. E., Hall, D. R., Beglov, D., Vajda, S., Kozakov, D., & Flex, F. T. (2013). Accounting for binding site flexibility to improve fragment-based identification of druggable hot spots. Bioinformatics,29, 1218–1219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Navlakha, S., & Kingsford, C. (2010). The power of protein interaction networks for associating genes with diseases. Bioinformatics,26, 1057–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Mørk, S., Pletscher-Frankild, S., PallejaCaro, A., Gorodkin, J., & Jensen, L. J. (2014). Protein- driven inference of miRNA-disease associations. Bioinformatics,30, 392–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Zinzalla, G., & Thurston, D. E. (2009). Targeting protein–protein interactions for therapeutic intervention: A challenge for the future. Future Medicinal Chemistry,1, 65–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson, D. K., & Karanicolas, J. (2019). Druggable protein interaction sites are more predisposed to surface pocket formation than the rest of the protein surface. PLoS Computational Biology,9(3), e1002951.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Mignani, S., ElKazzouli, S., Bousmina, M. M., & Majoral, J.-P. (2014). Den drimer space exploration: An assessment of dendrimers/dendritic scaffolding as inhibitors of protein–protein interactions, a potential new area of pharmaceutical development. Chemical Reviews,114, 1327–1342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Huang, Y.-A., You, Z.-H., Li, X., Chen, X., Hu, P., Li, S., et al. (2016). Construction of reliable protein–protein interaction networks using weighted sparse representation based classifier with pseudo substitution matrix representation features. Neurocomputing,218, 131–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Shin, W.-H., Christoffer, C. W., & Kihara, D. (2017). In silico structure-based approaches to discover protein-protein interaction-targeting drugs. Methods,131, 22–32.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Zhang, J., Yang, H., Song, H., & Zhang, Y. (2017). An improved archaeology algorithm based on integrated multi-source. Biological Information for Yeast Protein Interaction Network, IEEE Access

  32. Brun, C., Chevenet, F., Martin, D., Wojcik, J., Guénoche, A., & Jacq, B. (2003). Functional classification of proteins for the prediction of cellular function from a protein-protein interaction network. Genome Biology,5, R6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tahir, M., & Hayat, M. (2017). Machine learning based identification of protein–protein interactions using derived features of physiochemical properties and evolutionary profiles. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine,78, 61–71.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Jia, J., Liu, Z., Xiao, X., Liu, B., & Chou, K.-C. (2014). Identification of protein-protein binding sites by incorporating the physicochemical properties and stationary wavelet transforms into pseudo amino acid composition. Journal of Biomolecular Structure and Dynamics, ISSN: 0739-1102 (Print) 1538-0254 (Online).

  35. Wei, Z.-S., Han, K., Yang, J.-Y., Shen, H.-B., & Yu, D.-J. (2016). Protein–protein interaction sites prediction by ensembling SVM and sample weighted random forests. Neuro Computing,193, 201–212.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Zhanga, L., Yua, G., Xiab, D., & Wang, J. (2018). Protein-protein interactions prediction based on ensemble deep neural networks. Neurocomputing,S0925–2312(18), 30633–30637.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Hu, L., & Chan, K. C. C. (2016). Extracting coevolutionary features in protein sequences for predicting protein-protein interactions. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, 2520923.

  38. Qiao, Y., Xiong, Y., Gao, H., Zhu, X., & Chen, P. (2018). Protein-protein interface hot spots prediction based on a hybrid feature selection strategy. BMC Bioinformatics,19, 14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Zahiri, J., Yaghoubi, O., Mohammad-Noori, M., Ebrahimpour, R., & Masoudi-Nejad, A. (2013). PPIevo: Protein–protein interaction prediction from PSSM based evolutionary information. Genomics,102, 237–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Karthik, M.N., & Davis, M. (2012). Search Using N-gram Technique Based Statistical Analysis for Knowledge Extraction in Case Based Reasoning Systems. https://arxiv.org/ftp/cs/papers/0407/0407009.pdf

  41. Dasgupta, K., Mandal, B., Dutta, P., Mandal, J. K., & Dam, S. (2013). Agenetic algorithm GA) based load balancing strategy for cloudcomputing. Procedia Technology,10, 340–347.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang, Z., & Zhang, X. (2010). A load balancing mechanism basedon ant colony and complex network theory in open cloud computing federation. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Industrial Mechatronics and Automation (ICIMA’10), vol. 2, pp. 240–243.

  43. Braun, T. D., Siegel, H. J., Beck, N., et al. (2001). A comparison of eleven static heuristics for mapping a class of independent tasks onto heterogeneous distributed computing systems. Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing,61(6), 810–837.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Alabdulrahman, R. (2014), A comparative study of ensemble active learning, Thesis, University of Ottawa.

  45. Read, J., Bifet, A., Pfahringer, B., & Holmes, G. (2012). Batch-incremental versus instance-incremental learning in dynamic and evolving data. Advances in Intelligent Data Analysis XI , Springer (pp. 313–323)

  46. Witten, I. H., & Frank, E. (2005). Data Mining: Practical machine learning Tools and techniques: Morgan Kaufmann.

  47. Ko, A.H.-R., Sabourin, R., & de Souza Britto, Jr, A. (2007). A new dynamic ensemble selection method for numeral recognition Multiple Classifier Systems (pp. 431–439): Springer: Berlin.

  48. Mazid, M. M., Ali, S., & Tickle, K. S. (2010). Improved C4. 5 algorithm for rule based classification. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 9th WSEAS international conference on Artificial intelligence, knowledge Engineering and data bases.

  49. Melville, P., & Mooney, R. J. (2003). Constructing diverse classifier ensembles using artificial training examples. Paper presented at the IJCAI.

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank bharathiar University for providing the infrastructure to carry out the research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Computer Science, Bharathiar University, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India

    P. Lakshmi & D. Ramyachitra

Authors
  1. P. Lakshmi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. D. Ramyachitra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to D. Ramyachitra.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lakshmi, P., Ramyachitra, D. An Improved Genetic with Particle Swarm Optimization Algorithm Based on Ensemble Classification to Predict Protein–Protein Interaction. Wireless Pers Commun 113, 1851–1870 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07296-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11277-020-07296-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation