On the hydrophobicity of peptides:comparing empirical predictions of peptide log P values

Peptides are of great therapeutic potential as vaccines and drugs. Knowledge of physicochemical descriptors, including the partition coefficient logP, is useful for the development of predictive Quantitative Structure-Activity Relationships (QSARs). We have investigated the accuracy of available programs for the prediction of logP values for peptides with known experimental values obtained from the literature. Eight prediction programs were tested, of which seven programs were fragment-based methods: XLogP, LogKow, PLogP, ACDLogP, AlogP, Interactive Analysis's LogP and MlogP; and one program used a whole molecule approach: QikProp. The predictive accuracy of the programs was assessed using r(2) values, with ALogP being the most effective (r( 2) = 0.822) and MLogP the least (r(2) = 0.090). We also examined three distinct types of peptide structure: blocked, unblocked, and cyclic. For each study (all peptides, blocked, unblocked and cyclic peptides) the performance of programs rated from best to worse is as follows: all peptides - ALogP, QikProp, PLogP, XLogP, IALogP, LogKow, ACDLogP, and MlogP; blocked peptides - PLogP, XLogP, ACDLogP, IALogP, LogKow, QikProp, ALogP, and MLogP; unblocked peptides - QikProp, IALogP, ALogP, ACDLogP, MLogP, XLogP, LogKow and PLogP; cyclic peptides - LogKow, ALogP, XLogP, MLogP, QikProp, ACDLogP, IALogP. In summary, all programs gave better predictions for blocked peptides, while, in general, logP values for cyclic peptides were under-predicted and those of unblocked peptides were over-predicted.

The risk of re-intervention after endovascular aortic aneurysm repair

This thesis studies survival analysis techniques dealing with censoring to produce predictive tools that predict the risk of endovascular aortic aneurysm repair (EVAR) re-intervention. Censoring indicates that some patients do not continue follow up, so their outcome class is unknown. Methods dealing with censoring have drawbacks and cannot handle the high censoring of the two EVAR datasets collected. Therefore, this thesis presents a new solution to high censoring by modifying an approach that was incapable of differentiating between risks groups of aortic complications. Feature selection (FS) becomes complicated with censoring. Most survival FS methods depends on Cox's model, however machine learning classifiers (MLC) are preferred. Few methods adopted MLC to perform survival FS, but they cannot be used with high censoring. This thesis proposes two FS methods which use MLC to evaluate features. The two FS methods use the new solution to deal with censoring. They combine factor analysis with greedy stepwise FS search which allows eliminated features to enter the FS process. The first FS method searches for the best neural networks' configuration and subset of features. The second approach combines support vector machines, neural networks, and K nearest neighbor classifiers using simple and weighted majority voting to construct a multiple classifier system (MCS) for improving the performance of individual classifiers. It presents a new hybrid FS process by using MCS as a wrapper method and merging it with the iterated feature ranking filter method to further reduce the features. The proposed techniques outperformed FS methods based on Cox's model such as; Akaike and Bayesian information criteria, and least absolute shrinkage and selector operator in the log-rank test's p-values, sensitivity, and concordance. This proves that the proposed techniques are more powerful in correctly predicting the risk of re-intervention. Consequently, they enable doctors to set patients’ appropriate future observation plan.

Data methods in optometry. Part 6: fitting a regression line to data

1. Fitting a linear regression to data provides much more information about the relationship between two variables than a simple correlation test. A goodness of fit test of the line should always be carried out. Hence, r squared estimates the strength of the relationship between Y and X, ANOVA whether a statistically significant line is present, and the ‘t’ test whether the slope of the line is significantly different from zero. 2. Always check whether the data collected fit the assumptions for regression analysis and, if not, whether a transformation of the Y and/or X variables is necessary. 3. If the regression line is to be used for prediction, it is important to determine whether the prediction involves an individual y value or a mean. Care should be taken if predictions are made close to the extremities of the data and are subject to considerable error if x falls beyond the range of the data. Multiple predictions require correction of the P values. 3. If several individual regression lines have been calculated from a number of similar sets of data, consider whether they should be combined to form a single regression line. 4. If the data exhibit a degree of curvature, then fitting a higher-order polynomial curve may provide a better fit than a straight line. In this case, a test of whether the data depart significantly from a linear regression should be carried out.

When to use the Bonferroni correction

PURPOSE: The Bonferroni correction adjusts probability (p) values because of the increased risk of a type I error when making multiple statistical tests. The routine use of this test has been criticised as deleterious to sound statistical judgment, testing the wrong hypothesis, and reducing the chance of a type I error but at the expense of a type II error; yet it remains popular in ophthalmic research. The purpose of this article was to survey the use of the Bonferroni correction in research articles published in three optometric journals, viz. Ophthalmic & Physiological Optics, Optometry & Vision Science, and Clinical & Experimental Optometry, and to provide advice to authors contemplating multiple testing. RECENT FINDINGS: Some authors ignored the problem of multiple testing while others used the method uncritically with no rationale or discussion. A variety of methods of correcting p values were employed, the Bonferroni method being the single most popular. Bonferroni was used in a variety of circumstances, most commonly to correct the experiment-wise error rate when using multiple 't' tests or as a post-hoc procedure to correct the family-wise error rate following analysis of variance (anova). Some studies quoted adjusted p values incorrectly or gave an erroneous rationale. SUMMARY: Whether or not to use the Bonferroni correction depends on the circumstances of the study. It should not be used routinely and should be considered if: (1) a single test of the 'universal null hypothesis' (Ho ) that all tests are not significant is required, (2) it is imperative to avoid a type I error, and (3) a large number of tests are carried out without preplanned hypotheses.

Association of SNPs in LCP1 and CTIF with hearing in 11 year old children:findings from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth cohort and the G-EAR consortium

BACKGROUND: The genetic basis of hearing loss in humans is relatively poorly understood. In recent years, experimental approaches including laboratory studies of early onset hearing loss in inbred mouse strains, or proteomic analyses of hair cells or hair bundles, have suggested new candidate molecules involved in hearing function. However, the relevance of these genes/gene products to hearing function in humans remains unknown. We investigated whether single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the human orthologues of genes of interest arising from the above-mentioned studies correlate with hearing function in children. METHODS: 577 SNPs from 13 genes were each analysed by linear regression against averaged high (3, 4 and 8 kHz) or low frequency (0.5, 1 and 2 kHz) audiometry data from 4970 children in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) birth-cohort at age eleven years. Genes found to contain SNPs with low p-values were then investigated in 3417 adults in the G-EAR study of hearing. RESULTS: Genotypic data were available in ALSPAC for a total of 577 SNPs from 13 genes of interest. Two SNPs approached sample-wide significance (pre-specified at p = 0.00014): rs12959910 in CBP80/20-dependent translation initiation factor (CTIF) for averaged high frequency hearing (p = 0.00079, β = 0.61 dB per minor allele); and rs10492452 in L-plastin (LCP1) for averaged low frequency hearing (p = 0.00056, β = 0.45 dB). For low frequencies, rs9567638 in LCP1 also enhanced hearing in females (p = 0.0011, β = -1.76 dB; males p = 0.23, β = 0.61 dB, likelihood-ratio test p = 0.006). SNPs in LCP1 and CTIF were then examined against low and high frequency hearing data for adults in G-EAR. Although the ALSPAC results were not replicated, a SNP in LCP1, rs17601960, is in strong LD with rs9967638, and was associated with enhanced low frequency hearing in adult females in G-EAR (p = 0.00084). CONCLUSIONS: There was evidence to suggest that multiple SNPs in CTIF may contribute a small detrimental effect to hearing, and that a sex-specific locus in LCP1 is protective of hearing. No individual SNPs reached sample-wide significance in both ALSPAC and G-EAR. This is the first report of a possible association between LCP1 and hearing function.