Neural Computing & Applications

, Volume 6, Issue 1, pp 57–62 | Cite as

The prediction of protein secondary structure with a Cascade Correlation Learning Architecture of neural networks

  • F. Vivarelli
  • P. Fariselli
  • R. Casadio
Articles

Abstract

A Cascade Correlation Learning Architecture (CCLA) of neural networks is tested on the task of predicting the secondary structure of proteins. The results are compared with those obtained with Neural Networks (NN) trained with the back-propagation algorithm (BPNN) and generated with genetic algorithms. CCLA proceeds towards the global minimum of the error function more efficiently than BPNN. However, only a slight improvement in the average efficiency value is noticeable (61.82% as compared with 61.61% obtained with BPNN). The values of the three correlation coefficients for the discriminated secondary structures are also rather similar (Ct8,C α ,C β and Ccoil are 0.36, 0.29 and 0.36 with CCLA, and 0.36, 0.31 and 0.35 with BPNN). This indicates that the efficiency of the prediction does not depend upon the training algorithm, and confirms our previous observation that when single sequences are used as input code to the network system, different NN architectures can perform similarly.

Keywords

Cascade correlation learning algorithm Neural networks Pattern recognition Predictive methods Protein secondary structure prediction 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Qian N, Sejnowski TG. Predicting the secondary structure of globular proteins using neural network models. J Mol Biol 1988; 202: 865–884Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirst JD, Sternberg JE. Prediction of structural and functional features of proteins and nucleic acid sequences by artificial neural networks. Biochemistry 1992; 31: 7211–7218Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Presnell SR, Cohen FE. Artificial neural networks for pattern recognition in biochemical sequences. Ann Rev Biophys Biomol Struct 1993; 22: 283–298Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rumelhart DE, Hinton GE, Williams RJ. Learning representation by backpropagation errors. Nature 1986; 323: 533–536Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Holley HL, Karplus M. Protein secondary structure prediction with a neural network. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 1989; 86: 152–156Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pascarella S, Bossa F. PRONET: a microcomputer program for predicting the secondary structure of proteins with a neural network. Comput Aplic Biosci 1989, 5: 319–320Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kneller DG, Cohen FE, Langridge R. Improvements in protein secondary structure prediction by an enhanced neural network. J Mol Biol 1990; 214: 171–182Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Muskal SM, Kim SH. Predicting protein secondary structure content. A tandem neural network approach. J Mol Biol 1992; 225: 713–727Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Stolorz P, Lapedes A, Xia Y. Predicting protein secondary structure using neural net and statistical methods. J Mol Biol 1992; 225: 363–377Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fariselli P, Compiani M, Casadio R. Predicting secondary structures of membrane proteins with neural networks. Europ Biophys J 1993, 22: 41–51Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Compiani M, Fariselli P, Casadio R. Statistical behaviour of perceptrons: the case study of the prediction of protein secondary structures. Int J Neur Sys 1995 (Supp), 6: 195–199Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rost B, Sander C. Prediction protein secondary structure at better than 70% accuracy. J Mol Biol 1993; 232: 584–599Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rost B, Sander C, Schneider R. Redefining the goals of protein secondary structure prediction. J Mol Biol 1994; 235: 13–26Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rost B, Sander C, Schneider R. PHD: an automatic mail server for protein secondary structure prediction. Comput Applic Biosci 1994; 10: 53–60Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vivarelli F, Giusti G, Villani M, Campanini R, Fariselli P, Compiani M, Casadio R. LGANN: a parallel system combining a local genetic algorithm and neural networks for the prediction of secondary structure of proteins. Comput Applic Biosci 1995; 11: 253–260Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Haykin S. Neural Networks. A comprehensive foundation. MacMillan College Pub. Co., New York, 1994Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fahlman SE, Lebiere C. The Cascade-correlation learning architecture. Technical Report CMU CS 90-100, Carnegie Mellon University, 1990Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bishop C. Extract calculation of the hessian matrix for the multilayer perceptron. Neural Computation 1992; 4: 494–501Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fahlman SE. Faster learning variations on back-propagation: an empirical study. Proc 1988 Connectionist Models Summer School, Morgan Kaufmann, 1988Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bernstein FC, Koetzle TF, Williams GJB, Meyer EF, Brice MD, Rodgers JR, Kennard O, Shimanouchi T, Tasumi M. The protein data bank: a computer-based archival file for macromolecular structure. J Mol Biol 1977; 112: 535–542Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lipman DJ, Pearson WR. Rapid and sensitive protein similarity searches. Science 1985; 227: 1435–1441Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kabsch W, Sander C. Dictionary of protein secondary structure. Pattern of hydrogen-bonded and geometrical features. Biopolymers 1983; 22: 2577–2673Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Schulz GE, Schirmer RH. Principles of Protein Structure. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1979Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Matthews BW. Comparison of the predicted and observed secondary structure of T4 phage lysozyme. Biochim Biophys Acta 1975; 405: 442–451Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • F. Vivarelli
    • 1
    • 2
  • P. Fariselli
    • 1
    • 2
  • R. Casadio
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of BiophysicsUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly
  2. 2.Department of BiologyUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations