skip to main content
10.1145/3538641.3561492acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesracsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

ToxinMI: improving peptide toxicity prediction by fusing multimodal information based on mutual information

Published:20 October 2022Publication History

ABSTRACT

Accurately identifying peptide toxicity is a crucial step for computer-aided peptide-based drug screening, which could accelerate novel drug discovery and reduce resource consumption. Recently, deep learning has shown promising performance in bioinformatics. However, one challenge in developing a deep learning-based model for peptide toxicity prediction is how to represent peptides effectively. In this study, we propose an end-to-end deep learning model named ToxinMI, to predict peptide toxicity that learns features directly from sequence alone. Precisely, ToxinMI captures the sequential and evolutionary features of the peptide simultaneously and introduces the mutual information principle to learn a discriminative representation by discarding noisy information and retaining related-task information from them as much as possible. The experimental results demonstrate that ToxinMI achieves superior predictive performance against state-of-the-art baselines.1

References

  1. Deb, P. K., Al-Attraqchi, O., Chandrasekaran, B., Paradkar, A. and Tekade, R. K. Protein/peptide drug delivery systems: practical considerations in pharmaceutical product development. Elsevier, City, 2019.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Fosgerau, K. and Hoffmann, T. Peptide therapeutics: current status and future directions. Drug discovery today, 20, 1 (2015), 122--128.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Liu, X., Wu, F., Ji, Y. and Yin, L. Recent advances in anti-cancer protein/peptide delivery. Bioconjugate chemistry, 30, 2 (2018), 305--324.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Muttenthaler, M., King, G. F., Adams, D. J. and Alewood, P. F. Trends in peptide drug discovery. Nature reviews Drug discovery, 20, 4 (2021), 309--325.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Otvos Jr, L. and Wade, J. D. Current challenges in peptide-based drug discovery. Frontiers Media SA, City, 2014.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Altschul, S. F., Madden, T. L., Schäffer, A. A., Zhang, J., Zhang, Z., Miller, W. and Lipman, D. J. Gapped BLAST and PSI-BLAST: a new generation of protein database search programs. Nucleic acids research, 25, 17 (1997), 3389--3402.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Negi, S. S., Schein, C. H., Ladics, G. S., Mirsky, H., Chang, P., Rascle, J.-B., Kough, J., Sterck, L., Papineni, S. and Jez, J. M. Functional classification of protein toxins as a basis for bioinformatic screening. Scientific reports, 7, 1 (2017), 1--11.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Cole, T. J. and Brewer, M. S. TOXIFY: a deep learning approach to classify animal venom proteins. PeerJ, 7 (2019), e7200.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ding, C. H. and Dubchak, I. Multi-class protein fold recognition using support vector machines and neural networks. Bioinformatics, 17, 4 (2001), 349--358.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Wei, L., Zhou, C., Chen, H., Song, J. and Su, R. ACPred-FL: a sequence-based predictor using effective feature representation to improve the prediction of anti-cancer peptides. Bioinformatics, 34, 23 (2018), 4007--4016.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Bebis, G. and Georgiopoulos, M. Feed-forward neural networks. IEEE Potentials, 13, 4 (1994), 27--31.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Ke, G., Meng, Q., Finley, T., Wang, T., Chen, W., Ma, W., Ye, Q. and Liu, T.-Y. Lightgbm: A highly efficient gradient boosting decision tree. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (2017), 3146--3154.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Byvatov, E. and Schneider, G. Support vector machine applications in bioinformatics. Applied bioinformatics, 2, 2 (2003), 67--77.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Kuang, Q., Li, Y., Wu, Y., Li, R., Dong, Y., Li, Y., Xiong, Q., Huang, Z. and Li, M. A kernel matrix dimension reduction method for predicting drug-target interaction. Chemometrics and Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 162 (2017), 104--110.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Naamati, G., Askenazi, M. and Linial, M. ClanTox: a classifier of short animal toxins. Nucleic acids research, 37, suppl_2 (2009), W363--W368.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Gacesa, R., Barlow, D. J. and Long, P. F. Machine learning can differentiate venom toxins from other proteins having non-toxic physiological functions. PeerJ Computer Science, 2 (2016), e90.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Gupta, S., Kapoor, P., Chaudhary, K., Gautam, A., Kumar, R., Consortium, O. S. D. D. and Raghava, G. P. In silico approach for predicting toxicity of peptides and proteins. PloS one, 8, 9 (2013), e73957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma, N., Naorem, L. D., Jain, S. and Raghava, G. P. ToxinPred2: an improved method for predicting toxicity of proteins. Briefings in Bioinformatics (2022).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. He, Y., Maisuradze, G. G., Yin, Y., Kachlishvili, K., Rackovsky, S. and Scheraga, H. A. Sequence-, structure-, and dynamics-based comparisons of structurally homologous CheY-like proteins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114, 7 (2017), 1578--1583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Papadatos, G., Gaulton, A., Hersey, A. and Overington, J. P. Activity, assay and target data curation and quality in the ChEMBL database. Journal of computer-aided molecular design, 29, 9 (2015), 885--896.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Chen, H., Engkvist, O., Wang, Y., Olivecrona, M. and Blaschke, T. The rise of deep learning in drug discovery. Drug discovery today, 23, 6 (2018), 1241--1250.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Najafabadi, M. M., Villanustre, F., Khoshgoftaar, T. M., Seliya, N., Wald, R. and Muharemagic, E. Deep learning applications and challenges in big data analytics. Journal of big data, 2, 1 (2015), 1--21.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Pan, X., Zuallaert, J., Wang, X., Shen, H.-B., Campos, E. P., Marushchak, D. O. and De Neve, W. ToxDL: deep learning using primary structure and domain embeddings for assessing protein toxicity. Bioinformatics, 36, 21 (2021), 5159--5168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Wei, L., Ye, X., Xue, Y., Sakurai, T. and Wei, L. ATSE: a peptide toxicity predictor by exploiting structural and evolutionary information based on graph neural network and attention mechanism. Briefings in Bioinformatics, 22, 5 (2021), bbab041.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Wei, L., Ye, X., Sakurai, T., Mu, Z. and Wei, L. ToxIBTL: prediction of peptide toxicity based on information bottleneck and transfer learning. Bioinformatics, 38, 6 (2022), 1514--1524.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Dong, Q.-W., Wang, X.-l. and Lin, L. Application of latent semantic analysis to protein remote homology detection. Bioinformatics, 22, 3 (2006), 285--290.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Vaswani, A., Shazeer, N., Parmar, N., Uszkoreit, J., Jones, L., Gomez, A. N., Kaiser, Ł. and Polosukhin, I. Attention is all you need. Advances in neural information processing systems, 30 (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Alemi, A. A., Fischer, I., Dillon, J. V. and Murphy, K. Deep variational information bottleneck. arXiv preprint arXiv:1612.00410 (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Wei, L., Ye, X., Xue, Y., Sakurai, T. and Wei, L. ATSE: a peptide toxicity predictor by exploiting structural and evolutionary information based on graph neural network and attention mechanism. Briefings in Bioinformatics (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. ToxinMI: improving peptide toxicity prediction by fusing multimodal information based on mutual information

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        RACS '22: Proceedings of the Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems
        October 2022
        208 pages
        ISBN:9781450393980
        DOI:10.1145/3538641

        Copyright © 2022 ACM

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 20 October 2022

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        Overall Acceptance Rate393of1,581submissions,25%
      • Article Metrics

        • Downloads (Last 12 months)53
        • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2

        Other Metrics

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader