Protein fold recognition is a critical step toward protein structure and function prediction, aiming at providing the most likely fold type of the query protein. In recent years, the development of deep learning (DL) technique has led to massive advances in this important field, and accordingly, the sensitivity of protein fold recognition has been dramatically improved. Most DL-based methods take an intermediate bottleneck layer as the feature representation of proteins with new fold types. However, this strategy is indirect, inefficient and conditional on the hypothesis that the bottleneck layer’s representation is assumed as a good representation of proteins with new fold types. To address the above problem, in this work, we develop a new computational framework by combining triplet network and ensemble DL. We first train a DL-based model, termed FoldNet, which employs triplet loss to train the deep convolutional network. FoldNet directly optimizes the protein fold embedding itself, making the proteins with the same fold types be closer to each other than those with different fold types in the new protein embedding space. Subsequently, using the trained FoldNet, we implement a new residue–residue contact-assisted predictor, termed FoldTR, which improves protein fold recognition. Furthermore, we propose a new ensemble DL method, termed FSD_XGBoost, which combines protein fold embedding with the other two discriminative fold-specific features extracted by two DL-based methods SSAfold and DeepFR. The Top 1 sensitivity of FSD_XGBoost increases to 74.8% at the fold level, which is ~9% higher than that of the state-of-the-art method. Together, the results suggest that fold-specific features extracted by different DL methods complement with each other, and their combination can further improve fold recognition at the fold level. The implemented web server of FoldTR and benchmark datasets are publicly available at http://csbio.njust.edu.cn/bioinf/foldtr/.
Deep Learning (DL) has recently enabled unprecedented advances in one of the grand challenges in computational biology: the half-century-old problem of protein structure prediction. In this paper we discuss recent advances, limitations, and future perspectives of DL on five broad areas: protein structure prediction, protein function prediction, genome engineering, systems biology and data integration, and phylogenetic inference. We discuss each application area and cover the main bottlenecks of DL approaches, such as training data, problem scope, and the ability to leverage existing DL architectures in new contexts. To conclude, we provide a summary of the subject-specific and general challenges for DL across the biosciences.more » « less
- NSF-PAR ID:
- Publisher / Repository:
- Nature Publishing Group
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Nature Communications
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
Recently, machine learning (ML) has established itself in various worldwide benchmarking competitions in computational biology, including Critical Assessment of Structure Prediction (CASP) and Drug Design Data Resource (D3R) Grand Challenges. However, the intricate structural complexity and high ML dimensionality of biomolecular datasets obstruct the efficient application of ML algorithms in the field. In addition to data and algorithm, an efficient ML machinery for biomolecular predictions must include structural representation as an indispensable component. Mathematical representations that simplify the biomolecular structural complexity and reduce ML dimensionality have emerged as a prime winner in D3R Grand Challenges. This review is devoted to the recent advances in developing low-dimensional and scalable mathematical representations of biomolecules in our laboratory. We discuss three classes of mathematical approaches, including algebraic topology, differential geometry, and graph theory. We elucidate how the physical and biological challenges have guided the evolution and development of these mathematical apparatuses for massive and diverse biomolecular data. We focus the performance analysis on protein–ligand binding predictions in this review although these methods have had tremendous success in many other applications, such as protein classification, virtual screening, and the predictions of solubility, solvation free energies, toxicity, partition coefficients, protein folding stability changes upon mutation, etc.more » « less
Abstract Deep learning (DL) is one of the fastest-growing topics in materials data science, with rapidly emerging applications spanning atomistic, image-based, spectral, and textual data modalities. DL allows analysis of unstructured data and automated identification of features. The recent development of large materials databases has fueled the application of DL methods in atomistic prediction in particular. In contrast, advances in image and spectral data have largely leveraged synthetic data enabled by high-quality forward models as well as by generative unsupervised DL methods. In this article, we present a high-level overview of deep learning methods followed by a detailed discussion of recent developments of deep learning in atomistic simulation, materials imaging, spectral analysis, and natural language processing. For each modality we discuss applications involving both theoretical and experimental data, typical modeling approaches with their strengths and limitations, and relevant publicly available software and datasets. We conclude the review with a discussion of recent cross-cutting work related to uncertainty quantification in this field and a brief perspective on limitations, challenges, and potential growth areas for DL methods in materials science.more » « less
Obeid, I. (Ed.)The Neural Engineering Data Consortium (NEDC) is developing the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus (TUDP), an open source database of high-resolution images from scanned pathology samples , as part of its National Science Foundation-funded Major Research Instrumentation grant titled “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning” . The long-term goal of this project is to release one million images. We have currently scanned over 100,000 images and are in the process of annotating breast tissue data for our first official corpus release, v1.0.0. This release contains 3,505 annotated images of breast tissue including 74 patients with cancerous diagnoses (out of a total of 296 patients). In this poster, we will present an analysis of this corpus and discuss the challenges we have faced in efficiently producing high quality annotations of breast tissue. It is well known that state of the art algorithms in machine learning require vast amounts of data. Fields such as speech recognition , image recognition  and text processing  are able to deliver impressive performance with complex deep learning models because they have developed large corpora to support training of extremely high-dimensional models (e.g., billions of parameters). Other fields that do not have access to such data resources must rely on techniques in which existing models can be adapted to new datasets . A preliminary version of this breast corpus release was tested in a pilot study using a baseline machine learning system, ResNet18 , that leverages several open-source Python tools. The pilot corpus was divided into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Portions of these slides were manually annotated  using the nine labels in Table 1  to identify five to ten examples of pathological features on each slide. Not every pathological feature is annotated, meaning excluded areas can include focuses particular to these labels that are not used for training. A summary of the number of patches within each label is given in Table 2. To maintain a balanced training set, 1,000 patches of each label were used to train the machine learning model. Throughout all sets, only annotated patches were involved in model development. The performance of this model in identifying all the patches in the evaluation set can be seen in the confusion matrix of classification accuracy in Table 3. The highest performing labels were background, 97% correct identification, and artifact, 76% correct identification. A correlation exists between labels with more than 6,000 development patches and accurate performance on the evaluation set. Additionally, these results indicated a need to further refine the annotation of invasive ductal carcinoma (“indc”), inflammation (“infl”), nonneoplastic features (“nneo”), normal (“norm”) and suspicious (“susp”). This pilot experiment motivated changes to the corpus that will be discussed in detail in this poster presentation. To increase the accuracy of the machine learning model, we modified how we addressed underperforming labels. One common source of error arose with how non-background labels were converted into patches. Large areas of background within other labels were isolated within a patch resulting in connective tissue misrepresenting a non-background label. In response, the annotation overlay margins were revised to exclude benign connective tissue in non-background labels. Corresponding patient reports and supporting immunohistochemical stains further guided annotation reviews. The microscopic diagnoses given by the primary pathologist in these reports detail the pathological findings within each tissue site, but not within each specific slide. The microscopic diagnoses informed revisions specifically targeting annotated regions classified as cancerous, ensuring that the labels “indc” and “dcis” were used only in situations where a micropathologist diagnosed it as such. Further differentiation of cancerous and precancerous labels, as well as the location of their focus on a slide, could be accomplished with supplemental immunohistochemically (IHC) stained slides. When distinguishing whether a focus is a nonneoplastic feature versus a cancerous growth, pathologists employ antigen targeting stains to the tissue in question to confirm the diagnosis. For example, a nonneoplastic feature of usual ductal hyperplasia will display diffuse staining for cytokeratin 5 (CK5) and no diffuse staining for estrogen receptor (ER), while a cancerous growth of ductal carcinoma in situ will have negative or focally positive staining for CK5 and diffuse staining for ER . Many tissue samples contain cancerous and non-cancerous features with morphological overlaps that cause variability between annotators. The informative fields IHC slides provide could play an integral role in machine model pathology diagnostics. Following the revisions made on all the annotations, a second experiment was run using ResNet18. Compared to the pilot study, an increase of model prediction accuracy was seen for the labels indc, infl, nneo, norm, and null. This increase is correlated with an increase in annotated area and annotation accuracy. Model performance in identifying the suspicious label decreased by 25% due to the decrease of 57% in the total annotated area described by this label. A summary of the model performance is given in Table 4, which shows the new prediction accuracy and the absolute change in error rate compared to Table 3. The breast tissue subset we are developing includes 3,505 annotated breast pathology slides from 296 patients. The average size of a scanned SVS file is 363 MB. The annotations are stored in an XML format. A CSV version of the annotation file is also available which provides a flat, or simple, annotation that is easy for machine learning researchers to access and interface to their systems. Each patient is identified by an anonymized medical reference number. Within each patient’s directory, one or more sessions are identified, also anonymized to the first of the month in which the sample was taken. These sessions are broken into groupings of tissue taken on that date (in this case, breast tissue). A deidentified patient report stored as a flat text file is also available. Within these slides there are a total of 16,971 total annotated regions with an average of 4.84 annotations per slide. Among those annotations, 8,035 are non-cancerous (normal, background, null, and artifact,) 6,222 are carcinogenic signs (inflammation, nonneoplastic and suspicious,) and 2,714 are cancerous labels (ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive ductal carcinoma in situ.) The individual patients are split up into three sets: train, development, and evaluation. Of the 74 cancerous patients, 20 were allotted for both the development and evaluation sets, while the remain 34 were allotted for train. The remaining 222 patients were split up to preserve the overall distribution of labels within the corpus. This was done in hope of creating control sets for comparable studies. Overall, the development and evaluation sets each have 80 patients, while the training set has 136 patients. In a related component of this project, slides from the Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) Biosample Repository (https://www.foxchase.org/research/facilities/genetic-research-facilities/biosample-repository -facility) are being digitized in addition to slides provided by Temple University Hospital. This data includes 18 different types of tissue including approximately 38.5% urinary tissue and 16.5% gynecological tissue. These slides and the metadata provided with them are already anonymized and include diagnoses in a spreadsheet with sample and patient ID. We plan to release over 13,000 unannotated slides from the FCCC Corpus simultaneously with v1.0.0 of TUDP. Details of this release will also be discussed in this poster. Few digitally annotated databases of pathology samples like TUDP exist due to the extensive data collection and processing required. The breast corpus subset should be released by November 2021. By December 2021 we should also release the unannotated FCCC data. We are currently annotating urinary tract data as well. We expect to release about 5,600 processed TUH slides in this subset. We have an additional 53,000 unprocessed TUH slides digitized. Corpora of this size will stimulate the development of a new generation of deep learning technology. In clinical settings where resources are limited, an assistive diagnoses model could support pathologists’ workload and even help prioritize suspected cancerous cases. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This material is supported by the National Science Foundation under grants nos. CNS-1726188 and 1925494. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation. REFERENCES  N. Shawki et al., “The Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology: Emerging Trends in Research and Applications, 1st ed., I. Obeid, I. Selesnick, and J. Picone, Eds. New York City, New York, USA: Springer, 2020, pp. 67 104. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9783030368432.  J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning.” Major Research Instrumentation (MRI), Division of Computer and Network Systems, Award No. 1726188, January 1, 2018 – December 31, 2021. https://www. isip.piconepress.com/projects/nsf_dpath/.  A. Gulati et al., “Conformer: Convolution-augmented Transformer for Speech Recognition,” in Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the International Speech Communication Association (INTERSPEECH), 2020, pp. 5036-5040. https://doi.org/10.21437/interspeech.2020-3015.  C.-J. Wu et al., “Machine Learning at Facebook: Understanding Inference at the Edge,” in Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Computer Architecture (HPCA), 2019, pp. 331–344. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8675201.  I. Caswell and B. Liang, “Recent Advances in Google Translate,” Google AI Blog: The latest from Google Research, 2020. [Online]. Available: https://ai.googleblog.com/2020/06/recent-advances-in-google-translate.html. [Accessed: 01-Aug-2021].  V. Khalkhali, N. Shawki, V. Shah, M. Golmohammadi, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Low Latency Real-Time Seizure Detection Using Transfer Deep Learning,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2021, pp. 1 7. https://www.isip. piconepress.com/publications/conference_proceedings/2021/ieee_spmb/eeg_transfer_learning/.  J. Picone, T. Farkas, I. Obeid, and Y. Persidsky, “MRI: High Performance Digital Pathology Using Big Data and Machine Learning,” Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 2020. https://www.isip.piconepress.com/publications/reports/2020/nsf/mri_dpath/.  I. Hunt, S. Husain, J. Simons, I. Obeid, and J. Picone, “Recent Advances in the Temple University Digital Pathology Corpus,” in Proceedings of the IEEE Signal Processing in Medicine and Biology Symposium (SPMB), 2019, pp. 1–4. https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9037859.  A. P. Martinez, C. Cohen, K. Z. Hanley, and X. (Bill) Li, “Estrogen Receptor and Cytokeratin 5 Are Reliable Markers to Separate Usual Ductal Hyperplasia From Atypical Ductal Hyperplasia and Low-Grade Ductal Carcinoma In Situ,” Arch. Pathol. Lab. Med., vol. 140, no. 7, pp. 686–689, Apr. 2016. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2015-0238-OA.more » « less
Small angle X‐ray scattering (SAXS) measures comprehensive distance information on a protein's structure, which can constrain and guide computational structure prediction algorithms. Here, we evaluate structure predictions of 11 monomeric and oligomeric proteins for which SAXS data were collected and provided to predictors in the 13th round of the Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction (CASP13). The category for SAXS‐assisted predictions made gains in certain areas for CASP13 compared to CASP12. Improvements included higher quality data with size exclusion chromatography‐SAXS (SEC‐SAXS) and better selection of targets and communication of results by CASP organizers. In several cases, we can track improvements in model accuracy with use of SAXS data. For hard multimeric targets where regular folding algorithms were unsuccessful, SAXS data helped predictors to build models better resembling the global shape of the target. For most models, however, no significant improvement in model accuracy at the domain level was registered from use of SAXS data, when rigorously comparing SAXS‐assisted models to the best regular server predictions. To promote future progress in this category, we identify successes, challenges, and opportunities for improved strategies in prediction, assessment, and communication of SAXS data to predictors. An important observation is that, for many targets, SAXS data were inconsistent with crystal structures, suggesting that these proteins adopt different conformation(s) in solution. This CASP13 result, if representative of PDB structures and future CASP targets, may have substantive implications for the structure training databases used for machine learning, CASP, and use of prediction models for biology.