Predicting clinical outcomes in neuroblastoma with genomic data integration

Background: Neuroblastoma is a heterogeneous disease with diverse clinical outcomes. Current risk group models require improvement as patients within the same risk group can still show variable prognosis. Recently collected genome-wide datasets provide opportunities to infer neuroblastoma subtypes in a more unified way. Within this context, data integration is critical as different molecular characteristics can contain complementary signals. To this end, we utilized the genomic datasets available for the SEQC cohort patients to develop supervised and unsupervised models that can predict disease prognosis. Results: Our supervised model trained on the SEQC cohort can accurately predict overall survival and event-free survival profiles of patients in two independent cohorts. We also performed extensive experiments to assess the prediction accuracy of high risk patients and patients without MYCN amplification. Our results from this part suggest that clinical endpoints can be predicted accurately across multiple cohorts. To explore the data in an unsupervised manner, we used an integrative clustering strategy named multi-view kernel k-means (MVKKM) that can effectively integrate multiple high-dimensional datasets with varying weights. We observed that integrating different gene expression datasets results in a better patient stratification compared to using these datasets individually. Also, our identified subgroups provide a better Cox regression model fit compared to the existing risk group definitions. Conclusion: Altogether, our results indicate that integration of multiple genomic characterizations enables the discovery of subtypes that improve over existing definitions of risk groups. Effective prediction of survival times will have a direct impact on choosing the right therapies for patients.No sponso

SHREC2020 track:Multi-domain protein shape retrieval challenge

Proteins are natural modular objects usually composed of several domains, each domain bearing a specific function that is mediated through its surface, which is accessible to vicinal molecules. This draws attention to an understudied characteristic of protein structures: surface, that is mostly unexploited by protein structure comparison methods. In the present work, we evaluated the performance of six shape comparison methods, among which three are based on machine learning, to distinguish between 588 multi-domain proteins and to recreate the evolutionary relationships at the proteinand species levels of the SCOPe database. The six groups that participated in the challenge submitted a total of 15 sets of results. We observed that the performance of all the methods significantly decreases at the species level, suggesting that shape-only protein comparison is challenging for closely related proteins. Even if the dataset is limited in size (only 588 proteins are considered whereas more than 160,000 protein structures are experimentally solved), we think that this work provides useful insights into the current shape comparison methods performance, and highlights possible limitations to large-scale applications due to the computational cost

Surface-based protein domains retrieval methods from a SHREC2021 challenge

publication dans une revue suite à la communication hal-03467479 (SHREC 2021: surface-based protein domains retrieval)International audienceProteins are essential to nearly all cellular mechanism and the effectors of the cells activities. As such, they often interact through their surface with other proteins or other cellular ligands such as ions or organic molecules. The evolution generates plenty of different proteins, with unique abilities, but also proteins with related functions hence similar 3D surface properties (shape, physico-chemical properties, …). The protein surfaces are therefore of primary importance for their activity. In the present work, we assess the ability of different methods to detect such similarities based on the geometry of the protein surfaces (described as 3D meshes), using either their shape only, or their shape and the electrostatic potential (a biologically relevant property of proteins surface). Five different groups participated in this contest using the shape-only dataset, and one group extended its pre-existing method to handle the electrostatic potential. Our comparative study reveals both the ability of the methods to detect related proteins and their difficulties to distinguish between highly related proteins. Our study allows also to analyze the putative influence of electrostatic information in addition to the one of protein shapes alone. Finally, the discussion permits to expose the results with respect to ones obtained in the previous contests for the extended method. The source codes of each presented method have been made available online

Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: The CASP14-CAPRI experiment

We present the results for CAPRI Round 50, the fourth joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of twelve targets, including six dimers, three trimers, and three higher-order oligomers. Four of these were easy targets, for which good structural templates were available either for the full assembly, or for the main interfaces (of the higher-order oligomers). Eight were difficult targets for which only distantly related templates were found for the individual subunits. Twenty-five CAPRI groups including eight automatic servers submitted ~1250 models per target. Twenty groups including six servers participated in the CAPRI scoring challenge submitted ~190 models per target. The accuracy of the predicted models was evaluated using the classical CAPRI criteria. The prediction performance was measured by a weighted scoring scheme that takes into account the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group as part of their five top-ranking models. Compared to the previous CASP-CAPRI challenge, top performing groups submitted such models for a larger fraction (70–75%) of the targets in this Round, but fewer of these models were of high accuracy. Scorer groups achieved stronger performance with more groups submitting correct models for 70–80% of the targets or achieving high accuracy predictions. Servers performed less well in general, except for the MDOCKPP and LZERD servers, who performed on par with human groups. In addition to these results, major advances in methodology are discussed, providing an informative overview of where the prediction of protein assemblies currently stands.Cancer Research UK, Grant/Award Number: FC001003; Changzhou Science and Technology Bureau, Grant/Award Number: CE20200503; Department of Energy and Climate Change, Grant/Award Numbers: DE-AR001213, DE-SC0020400, DE-SC0021303; H2020 European Institute of Innovation and Technology, Grant/Award Numbers: 675728, 777536, 823830; Institut national de recherche en informatique et en automatique (INRIA), Grant/Award Number: Cordi-S; Lietuvos Mokslo Taryba, Grant/Award Numbers: S-MIP-17-60, S-MIP-21-35; Medical Research Council, Grant/Award Number: FC001003; Japan Society for the Promotion of Science KAKENHI, Grant/Award Number: JP19J00950; Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Grant/Award Number: PID2019-110167RB-I00; Narodowe Centrum Nauki, Grant/Award Numbers: UMO-2017/25/B/ST4/01026, UMO-2017/26/M/ST4/00044, UMO-2017/27/B/ST4/00926; National Institute of General Medical Sciences, Grant/Award Numbers: R21GM127952, R35GM118078, RM1135136, T32GM132024; National Institutes of Health, Grant/Award Numbers: R01GM074255, R01GM078221, R01GM093123, R01GM109980, R01GM133840, R01GN123055, R01HL142301, R35GM124952, R35GM136409; National Natural Science Foundation of China, Grant/Award Number: 81603152; National Science Foundation, Grant/Award Numbers: AF1645512, CCF1943008, CMMI1825941, DBI1759277, DBI1759934, DBI1917263, DBI20036350, IIS1763246, MCB1925643; NWO, Grant/Award Number: TOP-PUNT 718.015.001; Wellcome Trust, Grant/Award Number: FC00100

Machine Learning-Based Approaches for Accurate Protein Structure Classification and Assembly

Proteins play a vital role in the functioning of living cells, and their analysis is crucial for gaining deeper insights into cellular processes. Determining their three-dimensional (3D) structures is a critical aspect of understanding proteins. These is important for developing new drugs, understanding disease processes, and for many other applications. In this thesis, we propose a novel and innovative approach for comparing 3D protein structures. Our approach uses a deep neural network to accurately identify proteins with similar structures. Rapid comparison of two proteins or a single protein against a database of millions of structures can be done to quickly identify similar structures and rank them within minutes, with improved accuracy over existing methods. Additionally, we have developed a method for assembling protein structures by combining Reinforcement Learning (RL) and LZerD. Our method formulates the assembly of protein complexes as an episode in the RL framework and uses precomputed pairwise models from LZerD to combine the chains until the complete complex is assembled. Our approach has shown improved results compared to similar methods for protein complex with 3-5 chains. To further enhance our approach, we replaced LZerD with AlphaFold-Multimer and applied it to predict the structure of proteins with 6-15 chains, There are few methods that are capable of this type of large scale protein complex assembly. Using AlphaFold-Multimer, we are able to generate and sample high-quality subcomponents, reducing the action space for the RL agent from 1,000 to 75, resulting in improved performance over similar methods and demonstrating the potential of our approach for analyzing large protein complexes

SHREC 2021 Track:Retrieval and classification of protein surfaces equipped with physical and chemical properties

This paper presents the methods that have participated in the SHREC 2021 contest on retrieval and classification of protein surfaces on the basis of their geometry and physicochemical properties. The goal of the contest is to assess the capability of different computational approaches to identify different conformations of the same protein, or the presence of common sub-parts, starting from a set of molecular surfaces. We addressed two problems: defining the similarity solely based on the surface geometry or with the inclusion of physicochemical information, such as electrostatic potential, amino acid hydrophobicity, and the presence of hydrogen bond donors and acceptors. Retrieval and classification performances, with respect to the single protein or the existence of common sub-sequences, are analysed according to a number of information retrieval indicators

SHREC 2021: surface-based protein domains retrieval

Oral. 3DOR is the dedicated workshop series for methods, applications and benchmark-based evaluation of 3D object retrieval, classification, and similarity-based object processing. The workshop also includes the 2021 edition of the 3D Shape Retrieval Challenge (SHREC). Accepted full papers will be published in Computers & Graphics Journal (Elsevier), and accepted short papers will appear in the Eurographics Digital Library.International audienceProteins are essential to nearly all cellular mechanism, and often interact through their surface with other cell molecules, such as proteins and ligands. The evolution generates plenty of different proteins, with unique abilities, but also proteins with related functions hence surface, which is therefore of primary importance for their activity. In the present work, we assess the ability of five methods to retrieve similar protein surfaces, using either their shape only (3D meshes), or their shape and the electrostatic potential at their surface, an important surface property. Five different groups participated in this challenge using the shape only, and one group extended its pre-existing algorithm to handle the electrostatic potential. The results reveal both the ability of the methods to detect related proteins and their difficulties to distinguish between topologically related proteins

Discriminating physiological from non-physiological interfaces in structures of protein complexes: A community-wide study

Reliably scoring and ranking candidate models of protein complexes and assigning their oligomeric state from the structure of the crystal lattice represent outstanding challenges. A community-wide effort was launched to tackle these challenges. The latest resources on protein complexes and interfaces were exploited to derive a benchmark dataset consisting of 1677 homodimer protein crystal structures, including a balanced mix of physiological and non-physiological complexes. The non-physiological complexes in the benchmark were selected to bury a similar or larger interface area than their physiological counterparts, making it more difficult for scoring functions to differentiate between them. Next, 252 functions for scoring protein-protein interfaces previously developed by 13 groups were collected and evaluated for their ability to discriminate between physiological and non-physiological complexes. A simple consensus score generated using the best performing score of each of the 13 groups, and a cross-validated Random Forest (RF) classifier were created. Both approaches showed excellent performance, with an area under the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.93 and 0.94, respectively, outperforming individual scores developed by different groups. Additionally, AlphaFold2 engines recalled the physiological dimers with significantly higher accuracy than the non-physiological set, lending support to the reliability of our benchmark dataset annotations. Optimizing the combined power of interface scoring functions and evaluating it on challenging benchmark datasets appears to be a promising strategy

Prediction of protein assemblies, the next frontier: The CASP14-CAPRI experiment

We present the results for CAPRI Round 50, the fourth joint CASP-CAPRI protein assembly prediction challenge. The Round comprised a total of twelve targets, including six dimers, three trimers, and three higher-order oligomers. Four of these were easy targets, for which good structural templates were available either for the full assembly, or for the main interfaces (of the higher-order oligomers). Eight were difficult targets for which only distantly related templates were found for the individual subunits. Twenty-five CAPRI groups including eight automatic servers submitted ~1250 models per target. Twenty groups including six servers participated in the CAPRI scoring challenge submitted ~190 models per target. The accuracy of the predicted models was evaluated using the classical CAPRI criteria. The prediction performance was measured by a weighted scoring scheme that takes into account the number of models of acceptable quality or higher submitted by each group as part of their five top-ranking models. Compared to the previous CASP-CAPRI challenge, top performing groups submitted such models for a larger fraction (70–75%) of the targets in this Round, but fewer of these models were of high accuracy. Scorer groups achieved stronger performance with more groups submitting correct models for 70–80% of the targets or achieving high accuracy predictions. Servers performed less well in general, except for the MDOCKPP and LZERD servers, who performed on par with human groups. In addition to these results, major advances in methodology are discussed, providing an informative overview of where the prediction of protein assemblies currently stands