ReviewGenome biology2006
Performance assessment of promoter predictions on ENCODE regions in the EGASP experiment.
Review in Genome biology, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multiple combinatorial interactions among natural structural variants of Brassica SOC1 promoters and SVP: conservation of binding affinity despite diversity in bimolecular interactions.Molecular biology reports · 2025Article
- Deep learning and support vector machines for transcription start site identification.PeerJ. Computer science · 2023Article
- Supervised promoter recognition: a benchmark framework.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Critical assessment of computational tools for prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoter prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Recognition of prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoters using convolutional deep learning neural networks.PloS one · 2017Article
- Article
- SeqTools: visual tools for manual analysis of sequence alignments.BMC research notes · 2016Article
- Mesoscopic model and free energy landscape for protein-DNA binding sites: analysis of cyanobacterial promoters.PLoS computational biology · 2014Article
- Genetic variants of the HSD11B1 gene promoter may be protective against polycystic ovary syndrome.Molecular biology reports · 2014Article
- Identification of a secondary promoter of CASP8 and its related transcription factor PURα.International journal of oncology · 2014Article
- Effective automated feature construction and selection for classification of biological sequences.PloS one · 2014Article
- Unravelling the hidden DNA structural/physical code provides novel insights on promoter location.Nucleic acids research · 2013Article
- A composite method based on formal grammar and DNA structural features in detecting human polymerase II promoter region.PloS one · 2013Article
- A systematic survey of loss-of-function variants in human protein-coding genes.Science (New York, N.Y.) · 2012Article
- Ensemble approach combining multiple methods improves human transcription start site prediction.BMC genomics · 2010Article
- Article
- Polymorphism in the flanking regions of the PbGP43 gene from the human pathogen Paracoccidioides brasiliensis: search for protein binding sequences and poly(A) cleavage sites.BMC microbiology · 2009Article
- High DNA melting temperature predicts transcription start site location in human and mouse.Nucleic acids research · 2009Article
- Identifying regulatory elements in eukaryotic genomes.Briefings in functional genomics & proteomics · 2009Review
- Toward a gold standard for promoter prediction evaluation.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study analyzes the predictions of a number of promoter predictors on the ENCODE regions of the human genome as part of the ENCODE Genome Annotation Assessment Project (EGASP). The systems analyzed operate on various principles and we assessed the effectiveness of different conceptual strategies used to correlate produced promoter predictions with the manually annotated 5' gene ends.
resultsThe predictions were assessed relative to the manual HAVANA annotation of the 5' gene ends. These 5' gene ends were used as the estimated reference transcription start sites. With the maximum allowed distance for predictions of 1,000 nucleotides from the reference transcription start sites, the sensitivity of predictors was in the range 32% to 56%, while the positive predictive value was in the range 79% to 93%. The average distance mismatch of predictions from the reference transcription start sites was in the range 259 to 305 nucleotides. At the same time, using transcription start site estimates from DBTSS and H-Invitational databases as promoter predictions, we obtained a sensitivity of 58%, a positive predictive value of 92%, and an average distance from the annotated transcription start sites of 117 nucleotides. In this experiment, the best performing promoter predictors were those that combined promoter prediction with gene prediction. The main reason for this is the reduced promoter search space that resulted in smaller numbers of false positive predictions.
conclusionThe main finding, now supported by comprehensive data, is that the accuracy of human promoter predictors for high-throughput annotation purposes can be significantly improved if promoter prediction is combined with gene prediction. Based on the lessons learned in this experiment, we propose a framework for the preparation of the next similar promoter prediction assessment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.