ARD-PRED: an in silico tool for predicting age-related-disorder-associated proteins

  • Kirti Bhadhadhara
  • Yasha Hasija
Methodologies and Application


Interactions among various proteins largely govern cellular processes, and this leads to numerous efforts toward extraction of information related to the proteins, their interactions and the function which is determined by these interactions. The main concern of the study is to present interface analysis of age-related-disorder (ARD)-related proteins to shed light on details of the interactions. It also emphasizes on the importance of using structures in network studies. A major goal in the post-genomic era is to identify and characterize disease susceptibility of genes and to apply this knowledge to disease prevention and treatment. Attempts have been made to integrate biological knowledge of Gene Ontology and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathways into the genomics field. Many gene set analysis methods have been used to detect disease-related risk pathways. The present study combines the network-centered approach with three-dimensional structures to comprehend the biology behind ARDs. Interface properties of the interacting complexes have been used as descriptors to classify age-related associated proteins and non-age-related associated proteins. Machine learning has been used to generate a classifier which is used to predict potential age-related proteins. The ARD-PRED tool achieved an overall accuracy in terms of precision score 81.5, recall score 81.2, accuracy value 79 and ROC Area score 89.6, F-measure 81.1. The tool has been made online at The present work would comprehend ongoing research in the field of ARDs and would also significantly improvise the understanding of the molecular mechanism of age-related diseases.


Interface properties Age-related disorder Machine learning 3-Dimensional structure Network analysis 



Authors acknowledge Pooja Khurana, Nitin Thukral, Lokesh Kumar Gahlot and Isha Srivastava for their scientific contributions.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.


  1. Adie EA, Adams RR, Evans KL, Porteous DJ, Pickard BS (2006) SUSPECTS: enabling fast and effective prioritization of positional candidates. Bioinformatics 22(6):773–774. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aung Z (2006) Computational analysis of 3D protein structures. Doctoral dissertation, School of Computing, National Institute of SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  3. Basse MJ, Betzi S, Bourgeas R, Bouzidi S, Chetrit B, Hamon V, Morelli X, Roche P (2013) 2P2Idb: a structural database dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein–protein interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 41:D824–D827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bauer-Mehren Anna, Rautschka Michael, Sanz Ferran, Furlong Laura I (2010) DisGeNET: a cytoscape plugin to visualize, integrate, search and analyze gene-disease networks. Bioinformatics 26(22):2924–6. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Calvo S, Jain M, Xie X, Sheth SA, Chang B, Goldberger OA, Spinazzola A, Zeviani M, Carr SA, Mootha VK (2006) Systematic identification of human mitochondrial disease genes through integrative genomics. Nat Genet 38(5):576–582. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choura M, Rebai A (2011) Structural analysis of hubs in human NRRTK network. Biol Direct 6:49. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chuang HY, Lee E, Liu YT, Lee D, Ideker T (2007) Network-based classification of breast cancer metastasis. Mol Syst Biol 3:140. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Davis J, Goadrich M (2006) The relationship between precision-recall and ROC curves. In: Proceedings of the 23rd international conference on machine learning, Pennsylvania, USA, 2006. ACM, New York, NYGoogle Scholar
  9. Goh KI, Cusick ME, Valle D, Childs B, Vidal M, Baraba’si AL (2007) The human disease network. Proc Natl Acad Sci 104(21):8685–8690. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gonzalez MW, Kann MG (2012) Protein interactions and disease. PLoS Comput Biol 8(12):e1002819. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hall M, Frank E, Holmes G, Pfahringer B, Reutemann P, Witten IH (2009) The WEKA data mining software: an update SIGKDD explorations. ACM SIGKDD Explor Newsl. Google Scholar
  12. Hamon V, Brunel JM, Combes S, Basse MJ, Roche P, Morelli X (2013) 2P2Ichem: focused chemical libraries dedicated to orthosteric modulation of protein–protein interactions. MedChemComm 4(5):797–809. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jain P, Thukral N, Gahlot LK, Hasija Y (2015) CARDIO-PRED: an in silico tool for predicting cardiovascular-disorder associated proteins. Syst Synth Biol 9(1–2):55–66. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kann MG (2007) Protein interactions and disease: computational approaches to uncover the etiology of diseases. Brief Bioinf 8(5):333–346. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kar G, Gursoy A, Keskin O (2009) Human cancer protein–protein interaction network: a structural perspective. PLoS Comput Biol 5(12):e1000601. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lopez-Bigas N, Ouzounis CA (2004) Genome-wide identification of genes likely to be involved in human genetic disease. Nucleic Acids Res 32(10):3108–3114. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Magrane M, The UniProt consortium (2011) UniProt knowledgebase: a hub of integrated protein data. Database (Oxford) 2011:bar009.
  18. Moreira IS, Fernandes PA, Ramos MJ (2007) Hot spots—a review of the protein–protein interface determinant amino-acid residues. Proteins 68(4):803–812. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Mosca R, Ce’ol A, Aloy P (2013) Interactome3D: adding structural details to protein networks. Nat Methods 10(1):47–53. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Srivastava I, Gahlot LK, Khurana P, Hasija Y (2016) dbAARD and AGP: a computational pipeline for the prediction of genes associated with age related disorders. J Biomed Inf 60:153–61. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Srivastava I, Khurana P, Yadav M, Hasija Y (2017) An integrative system biology approach to unravel potential drug candidates for multiple age related disorders. Biochimica et Biophys Acta (BBA) Proteins Proteomics 1865(12):1729–1738. doi: 10.1016/j.bbapap.2017.07.016Google Scholar
  22. Stark C, Breitkreutz BJ, Reguly T, Boucher L, Breitkreutz A, Tyers M (2006) BioGRID: a general repository for interaction datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 34(suppl 1):D535–D539. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Wang X, Wei X, Thijssen B, Das J, Lipkin SM, Yu H (2012) Three dimensional reconstruction of protein networks provides insight into human genetic disease. Nat Biotechnol 30(2):159–164. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Zhang KX, Ouellette BF (2011) CAERUS: predicting cancer outcomes using relationship between protein structural information, protein networks, gene expression data, and mutation data. PLoS Comput Biol. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiotechnologyDelhi Technological UniversityShahbad DaulatpurIndia

Personalised recommendations