Microbe-Drug Association Prediction with Bernoulli Random Forest based on Convolutional Neural Network


Abstract

Background. Published researches showed that antibiotic drugs play a key role in treating diseases caused by microbes. However, along with the drug widespread use, more and more microbes are resistant to drug. Therefore, it is necessary to predict microbe related drug for helping researchers develop new drug. Since lots of time and money required for traditional wet experiments, computational models can be used as novel method to discover potential microbe-drug associations. Methods. In this study, we proposed a new computational model of Convolutional Neural Network with Bernoulli Random Forest for Microbe-Drug Association prediction (CNNBRFMDA). The main task of CNNBRFMDA is to construct feature vector for all microbe-drug pairs based on the known microbe-drug association, microbe similarity and drug similarity. Following this, a subset of these feature vectors is randomly selected to create the training set. Subsequently, Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) was used to reduce the dimensionality of the feature vectors for all microbe-drug pairs, including those within the training set. The dimensionality-reduced training set is trained by Bernoulli Random Forest (BRF) to predict potential microbe-drug associations. Innovation lies in our novel integration of CNN and BRF, presenting a fresh approach utilizing neural networks for feature extraction to enhance BRF predictions. The feature vectors undergo nonlinear processing, creating low-dimensional representations for microbe-drug pairs. This transformative step not only optimizes computational efficiency but also refines the model's ability to capture intricate patterns and relationships within the data, thereby improving the precision and interpretability of drug response predictions to various microbes. Leveraging the Bernoulli distribution twice in BRF not only ensures algorithmic consistency but also demonstrates superior performance. Results. To evaluate the performance of CNNBRFMDA, we carried out 5-fold cross validation based on MDAD and abiofilm. In five-fold cross-validation, the mean AUC and standard deviation of CNNBRFMDA are 0.9017 +/- 0.0032 (MDAD), 0.9146 +/- 0.0041 (abiofilm), respectively. We further applied two different types of case studies to further evaluate the reliability of CNNBRFMDA. The results showed that 41 out of the top 50 predicted microbes associated with Ciprofloxacin were verified by searching literatures. The other case study revealed that 38 out of the top 50 predicted microbes related to Moxifloxacin were validated by published literatures.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.

  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at peer.review@peerj.com.