ArticleNucleic acids research2012
Recognition of prokaryotic promoters based on a novel variable-window Z-curve method.
Article in Nucleic acids research, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Predicting Promoters in Multiple Prokaryotes with Prompt.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2024Article
- CAPE: a deep learning framework with Chaos-Attention net for Promoter Evolution.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- iPro2L-DG: Hybrid network based on improved densenet and global attention mechanism for identifying promoter sequences.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Computational methods for identifying enhancer-promoter interactions.Quantitative biology (Beijing, China) · 2023Review
- iProm-Sigma54: A CNN Base Prediction Tool forCells · 2023Article
- Computational identification of promoters inFrontiers in microbiology · 2023Article
- iPro-WAEL: a comprehensive and robust framework for identifying promoters in multiple species.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Circ-LocNet: A Computational Framework for Circular RNA Sub-Cellular Localization Prediction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoters identification based on residual network transfer learning.Bioprocess and biosystems engineering · 2022Article
- Critical assessment of computational tools for prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoter prediction.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- Sigma70Pred: A highly accurate method for predicting sigma70 promoter inFrontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
- Promotech: a general tool for bacterial promoter recognition.Genome biology · 2021Article
- Computational prediction and interpretation of both general and specific types of promoters in Escherichia coli by exploiting a stacked ensemble-learning framework.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
- Identification of DNA NEpigenetics & chromatin · 2020Article
- Article
- iPromoter-2L2.0: Identifying Promoters and Their Types by Combining Smoothing Cutting Window Algorithm and Sequence-Based Features.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 2019Article
- iProEP: A Computational Predictor for Predicting Promoter.Molecular therapy. Nucleic acids · 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
Transcription is the first step in gene expression, and it is the step at which most of the regulation of expression occurs. Although sequenced prokaryotic genomes provide a wealth of information, transcriptional regulatory networks are still poorly understood using the available genomic information, largely because accurate prediction of promoters is difficult. To improve promoter recognition performance, a novel variable-window Z-curve method is developed to extract general features of prokaryotic promoters. The features are used for further classification by the partial least squares technique. To verify the prediction performance, the proposed method is applied to predict promoter fragments of two representative prokaryotic model organisms (Escherichia coli and Bacillus subtilis). Depending on the feature extraction and selection power of the proposed method, the promoter prediction accuracies are improved markedly over most existing approaches: for E. coli, the accuracies are 96.05% (σ(70) promoters, coding negative samples), 90.44% (σ(70) promoters, non-coding negative samples), 92.13% (known sigma-factor promoters, coding negative samples), 92.50% (known sigma-factor promoters, non-coding negative samples), respectively; for B. subtilis, the accuracies are 95.83% (known sigma-factor promoters, coding negative samples) and 99.09% (known sigma-factor promoters, non-coding negative samples). Additionally, being a linear technique, the computational simplicity of the proposed method makes it easy to run in a matter of minutes on ordinary personal computers or even laptops. More importantly, there is no need to optimize parameters, so it is very practical for predicting other species promoters without any prior knowledge or prior information of the statistical properties of the samples.
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.