Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16712732›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2006

Predicting DNA-binding sites of proteins from amino acid sequence.

Changhui Yan, Michael Terribilini, Feihong Wu, Robert L Jernigan, Drena Dobbs, Vasant Honavar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 67 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
67citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

67 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. DeepDISE: DNA Binding Site Prediction Using a Deep Learning Method.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Article
  8. Exploring the computational methods for protein-ligand binding site prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

7 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Changhui YanDepartment of Computer Science, Utah State University, Logan, Utah 84341, USA. cyan@cc.usu.edu
Michael Terribilini
Feihong Wu
Robert L Jernigan
Drena Dobbs
Vasant Honavar

Funding

Discovery of Protein Seq.Struct.Func.RelationshipsR33GM066387 · NIGMS · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HONAVAR, VASANT G. · 2005 to 2006
$545k
Protein Sequence Structure Function RelationshipsR21GM066387 · NIGMS · IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI HONAVAR, VASANT G. · 2003 to 2004
$291k
NIGMS NIH HHS GM 066387NIGMS NIH HHS R21 GM066387NIGMS NIH HHS R33 GM066387
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the molecular details of protein-DNA interactions is critical for deciphering the mechanisms of gene regulation. We present a machine learning approach for the identification of amino acid residues involved in protein-DNA interactions.

resultsWe start with a Naïve Bayes classifier trained to predict whether a given amino acid residue is a DNA-binding residue based on its identity and the identities of its sequence neighbors. The input to the classifier consists of the identities of the target residue and 4 sequence neighbors on each side of the target residue. The classifier is trained and evaluated (using leave-one-out cross-validation) on a non-redundant set of 171 proteins. Our results indicate the feasibility of identifying interface residues based on local sequence information. The classifier achieves 71% overall accuracy with a correlation coefficient of 0.24, 35% specificity and 53% sensitivity in identifying interface residues as evaluated by leave-one-out cross-validation. We show that the performance of the classifier is improved by using sequence entropy of the target residue (the entropy of the corresponding column in multiple alignment obtained by aligning the target sequence with its sequence homologs) as additional input. The classifier achieves 78% overall accuracy with a correlation coefficient of 0.28, 44% specificity and 41% sensitivity in identifying interface residues. Examination of the predictions in the context of 3-dimensional structures of proteins demonstrates the effectiveness of this method in identifying DNA-binding sites from sequence information. In 33% (56 out of 171) of the proteins, the classifier identifies the interaction sites by correctly recognizing at least half of the interface residues. In 87% (149 out of 171) of the proteins, the classifier correctly identifies at least 20% of the interface residues. This suggests the possibility of using such classifiers to identify potential DNA-binding motifs and to gain potentially useful insights into sequence correlates of protein-DNA interactions.

conclusionNaïve Bayes classifiers trained to identify DNA-binding residues using sequence information offer a computationally efficient approach to identifying putative DNA-binding sites in DNA-binding proteins and recognizing potential DNA-binding motifs.

Indexed as

Binding SitesGenetic TechniquesAlgorithmsBayes TheoremComputational BiologyDatabases, ProteinEntropyHumansModels, MolecularReproducibility of ResultsROC CurveSensitivity and SpecificitySequence Analysis, DNASequence Analysis, ProteinSoftware

Identifiers

PMID16712732
PMCPMC1534068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.