Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19707584›Full record

ArticlePloS one2009

Modeling the quantitative specificity of DNA-binding proteins from example binding sites.

Dana S F Homsi, Vineet Gupta, Gary D Stormo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. From biophysics to 'omics and systems biology.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2019
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

3 authors.

Dana S F HomsiDepartment of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Vineet Gupta
Gary D Stormo

Funding

DNA PATTERN IDENTIFICATION AND ANALYSISR01HG000249 · NHGRI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI STORMO, GARY D · 1990 to 2017
$5.6M
NHGRI NIH HHS HG00249NHGRI NIH HHS R01 HG000249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe binding of transcription factors to their respective DNA sites is a key component of every regulatory network. Predictions of transcription factor binding sites are usually based on models for transcription factor specificity. These models, in turn, are often based on examples of known binding sites. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL

findingsCollections of binding sites are obtained in simulation experiments where the true model for the transcription factor is known and various sampling procedures are employed. We compare the accuracies of three different and commonly used methods for predicting the specificity of the transcription factor based on example binding sites. Different methods for constructing the models can lead to significant differences in the accuracy of the predictions and we show that commonly used methods can be positively misleading, even at large sample sizes and using noise-free data. Methods that minimize the number of predicted binding sequences are often significantly more accurate than the other methods tested. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Different methods for generating motifs from example binding sites can have significantly different numbers of false positive and false negative predictions. For many different sampling procedures models based on quadratic programming are the most accurate.

Indexed as

Binding SitesDNA-Binding ProteinsModels, TheoreticalROC CurveDNA-Binding Proteins

Identifiers

PMID19707584
PMCPMC2726951

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.