Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20356413›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2010

Motif Enrichment Analysis: a unified framework and an evaluation on ChIP data.

Robert C McLeay, Timothy L Bailey

Open access · goldAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 455 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
455citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

455 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 734 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. The role of ATF4 in neurons under mitochondrial stress.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. The gene-like promoter and transcription of LTR retrotransposons.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

395 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Robert C McLeayInstitute for Molecular Bioscience, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland 4072, Australia.
Timothy L Bailey
University of Queensland · AU

Funding

The MEME suite of motif-based sequence analysis toolsR01RR021692 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI NOBLE, WILLIAM STAFFORD · 2005 to 2011
$2.1M
NCRR NIH HHS R01 RR021692NCRR NIH HHS R0-1 RR021692-01
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA major goal of molecular biology is determining the mechanisms that control the transcription of genes. Motif Enrichment Analysis (MEA) seeks to determine which DNA-binding transcription factors control the transcription of a set of genes by detecting enrichment of known binding motifs in the genes' regulatory regions. Typically, the biologist specifies a set of genes believed to be co-regulated and a library of known DNA-binding models for transcription factors, and MEA determines which (if any) of the factors may be direct regulators of the genes. Since the number of factors with known DNA-binding models is rapidly increasing as a result of high-throughput technologies, MEA is becoming increasingly useful. In this paper, we explore ways to make MEA applicable in more settings, and evaluate the efficacy of a number of MEA approaches.

resultsWe first define a mathematical framework for Motif Enrichment Analysis that relaxes the requirement that the biologist input a selected set of genes. Instead, the input consists of all regulatory regions, each labeled with the level of a biological signal. We then define and implement a number of motif enrichment analysis methods. Some of these methods require a user-specified signal threshold, some identify an optimum threshold in a data-driven way and two of our methods are threshold-free. We evaluate these methods, along with two existing methods (Clover and PASTAA), using yeast ChIP-chip data. Our novel threshold-free method based on linear regression performs best in our evaluation, followed by the data-driven PASTAA algorithm. The Clover algorithm performs as well as PASTAA if the user-specified threshold is chosen optimally. Data-driven methods based on three statistical tests-Fisher Exact Test, rank-sum test, and multi-hypergeometric test--perform poorly, even when the threshold is chosen optimally. These methods (and Clover) perform even worse when unrestricted data-driven threshold determination is used.

conclusionsOur novel, threshold-free linear regression method works well on ChIP-chip data. Methods using data-driven threshold determination can perform poorly unless the range of thresholds is limited a priori. The limits implemented in PASTAA, however, appear to be well-chosen. Our novel algorithms--AME (Analysis of Motif Enrichment)-are available at http://bioinformatics.org.au/ame/.

Indexed as

Chromatin ImmunoprecipitationRegulatory Elements, TranscriptionalAlgorithmsComputational BiologyDNA-Binding ProteinsLinear ModelsOligonucleotide Array Sequence AnalysisSequence AlignmentTranscription FactorsDNA-Binding ProteinsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID20356413
PMCPMC2868005
OpenAlexW2156661861

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.