ArticleBMC bioinformatics2007
Effective transcription factor binding site prediction using a combination of optimization, a genetic algorithm and discriminant analysis to capture distant interactions.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 43 citations in OpenAlex.
- Asymmetry of Motif Conservation Within Their Homotypic Pairs Distinguishes DNA-Binding Domains of Target Transcription Factors in ChIP-Seq Data.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Motif models proposing independent and interdependent impacts of nucleotides are related to high and low affinity transcription factor binding sites in Arabidopsis.Frontiers in plant science · 2022Article
- A single ChIP-seq dataset is sufficient for comprehensive analysis of motifs co-occurrence with MCOT package.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Spatial specificity of auxin responses coordinates wood formation.Nature communications · 2018Article
- The expansion of heterochromatin blocks in rye reflects the co-amplification of tandem repeats and adjacent transposable elements.BMC genomics · 2016Article
- The Interplay of Chromatin Landscape and DNA-Binding Context Suggests Distinct Modes of EIN3 Regulation inFrontiers in plant science · 2016Article
- Application of experimentally verified transcription factor binding sites models for computational analysis of ChIP-Seq data.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Computational analysis of auxin responsive elements in the Arabidopsis thaliana L. genome.BMC genomics · 2014Article
- Disclosing the crosstalk among DNA methylation, transcription factors, and histone marks in human pluripotent cells through discovery of DNA methylation motifs.Genome research · 2013Article
- Jaccard index based similarity measure to compare transcription factor binding site models.Algorithms for molecular biology : AMB · 2013Article
- Mechanisms of dietary response in mice and primates: a role for EGR1 in regulating the reaction to human-specific nutritional content.PloS one · 2012Article
- Most transcription factor binding sites are in a few mosaic classes of the human genome.BMC genomics · 2010Article
- Development of computational methods to search for FoxA transcription factor binding sites, their experimental verification and application to the analysis of ChIP-seq data.Doklady. Biochemistry and biophysicsArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReliable transcription factor binding site (TFBS) prediction methods are essential for computer annotation of large amount of genome sequence data. However, current methods to predict TFBSs are hampered by the high false-positive rates that occur when only sequence conservation at the core binding-sites is considered.
resultsTo improve this situation, we have quantified the performance of several Position Weight Matrix (PWM) algorithms, using exhaustive approaches to find their optimal length and position. We applied these approaches to bio-medically important TFBSs involved in the regulation of cell growth and proliferation as well as in inflammatory, immune, and antiviral responses (NF-kappaB, ISGF3, IRF1, STAT1), obesity and lipid metabolism (PPAR, SREBP, HNF4), regulation of the steroidogenic (SF-1) and cell cycle (E2F) genes expression. We have also gained extra specificity using a method, entitled SiteGA, which takes into account structural interactions within TFBS core and flanking regions, using a genetic algorithm (GA) with a discriminant function of locally positioned dinucleotide (LPD) frequencies. To ensure a higher confidence in our approach, we applied resampling-jackknife and bootstrap tests for the comparison, it appears that, optimized PWM and SiteGA have shown similar recognition performances. Then we applied SiteGA and optimized PWMs (both separately and together) to sequences in the Eukaryotic Promoter Database (EPD). The resulting SiteGA recognition models can now be used to search sequences for BSs using the web tool, SiteGA. Analysis of dependencies between close and distant LPDs revealed by SiteGA models has shown that the most significant correlations are between close LPDs, and are generally located in the core (footprint) region. A greater number of less significant correlations are mainly between distant LPDs, which spanned both core and flanking regions. When SiteGA and optimized PWM models were applied together, this substantially reduced false positives at least at higher stringencies.
conclusionBased on this analysis, SiteGA adds substantial specificity even to optimized PWMs and may be considered for large-scale genome analysis. It adds to the range of techniques available for TFBS prediction, and EPD analysis has led to a list of genes which appear to be regulated by the above TFs.
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.