ArticlePloS one2010
Dinucleotide weight matrices for predicting transcription factor binding sites: generalizing the position weight matrix.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 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
52 citing papers in PubMed.
- A species rules syntax model accurately organizes birdsong syllables into songs.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- A systematic guide for identifying transcription factors that directly regulate the expression of a gene of interest.Genome research · 2026Review
- Ultra-fast variant effect prediction using biophysical transcription factor binding models.Nucleic acids research · 2025Article
- DNA-Protein Binding is Dominated by Short Anchoring Elements.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Article
- Fundamentals for predicting transcriptional regulations from DNA sequence patterns.Journal of human genetics · 2024Review
- Decoding Non-coding Variants: Recent Approaches to Studying Their Role in Gene Regulation and Human Diseases.Frontiers in bioscience (Scholar edition) · 2024Review
- Position-specific evolution in transcription factor binding sites, and a fast likelihood calculation for the F81 model.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Prioritizing cardiovascular disease-associated variants altering NKX2-5 and TBX5 binding through an integrative computational approach.The Journal of biological chemistry · 2023Article
- Identifying promoter sequence architectures via a chunking-based algorithm using non-negative matrix factorisation.PLoS computational biology · 2023Article
- A survey on algorithms to characterize transcription factor binding sites.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2023Review
- Investigating the sequence landscape in thePeerJ · 2023Article
- Model-guided engineering of DNA sequences with predictable site-specific recombination rates.Nature communications · 2022Article
- Modeling binding specificities of transcription factor pairs with random forests.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Article
- BML: a versatile web server for bipartite motif discovery.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- DESSO-DB: A web database for sequence and shape motif analyses and identification.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- Bayesian Markov models improve the prediction of binding motifs beyond first order.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021Article
- ATAC-seq footprinting unravels kinetics of transcription factor binding during zygotic genome activation.Nature communications · 2020Article
- MODER2: first-order Markov modeling and discovery of monomeric and dimeric binding motifs.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- TFBSshape: an expanded motif database for DNA shape features of transcription factor binding sites.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- MTTFsite: cross-cell type TF binding site prediction by using multi-task learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) in silico is key in understanding gene regulation. TFBS are string patterns that exhibit some variability, commonly modelled as "position weight matrices" (PWMs). Though convenient, the PWM has significant limitations, in particular the assumed independence of positions within the binding motif; and predictions based on PWMs are usually not very specific to known functional sites. Analysis here on binding sites in yeast suggests that correlation of dinucleotides is not limited to near-neighbours, but can extend over considerable gaps. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsI describe a straightforward generalization of the PWM model, that considers frequencies of dinucleotides instead of individual nucleotides. Unlike previous efforts, this method considers all dinucleotides within an extended binding region, and does not make an attempt to determine a priori the significance of particular dinucleotide correlations. I describe how to use a "dinucleotide weight matrix" (DWM) to predict binding sites, dealing in particular with the complication that its entries are not independent probabilities. Benchmarks show, for many factors, a dramatic improvement over PWMs in precision of predicting known targets. In most cases, significant further improvement arises by extending the commonly defined "core motifs" by about 10 bp on either side. Though this flanking sequence shows no strong motif at the nucleotide level, the predictive power of the dinucleotide model suggests that the "signature" in DNA sequence of protein-binding affinity extends beyond the core protein-DNA contact region. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: While computationally more demanding and slower than PWM-based approaches, this dinucleotide method is straightforward, both conceptually and in implementation, and can serve as a basis for future improvements.
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.