ArticlePloS one2011
Assessing the effects of symmetry on motif discovery and modeling.
Article in PloS one, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Parametric bootstrapping for biological sequence motifs.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- High-resolution specificity from DNA sequencing highlights alternative modes of Lac repressor binding.Genetics · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIdentifying the DNA binding sites for transcription factors is a key task in modeling the gene regulatory network of a cell. Predicting DNA binding sites computationally suffers from high false positives and false negatives due to various contributing factors, including the inaccurate models for transcription factor specificity. One source of inaccuracy in the specificity models is the assumption of asymmetry for symmetric models. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsUsing simulation studies, so that the correct binding site model is known and various parameters of the process can be systematically controlled, we test different motif finding algorithms on both symmetric and asymmetric binding site data. We show that if the true binding site is asymmetric the results are unambiguous and the asymmetric model is clearly superior to the symmetric model. But if the true binding specificity is symmetric commonly used methods can infer, incorrectly, that the motif is asymmetric. The resulting inaccurate motifs lead to lower sensitivity and specificity than would the correct, symmetric models. We also show how the correct model can be obtained by the use of appropriate measures of statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: This study demonstrates that the most commonly used motif-finding approaches usually model symmetric motifs incorrectly, which leads to higher than necessary false prediction errors. It also demonstrates how alternative motif-finding methods can correct the problem, providing more accurate motif models and reducing the errors. Furthermore, it provides criteria for determining whether a symmetric or asymmetric model is the most appropriate for any experimental dataset.
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.