Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24600468›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in genetics2014

Common features of microRNA target prediction tools.

Sarah M Peterson, Jeffrey A Thompson, Melanie L Ufkin, Pradeep Sathyanarayana, Lucy Liaw, Clare Bates Congdon

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 234 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
234citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

234 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Tropical medicine and infectious disease · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. A Multi-Tissue Yak (Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Article
  15. miRNA Target Prediction: An Overview of the Past and Current Tools.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

174 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

6 authors.

Sarah M PetersonCenter for Molecular Medicine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute Scarborough, ME, USA ; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, University of Maine Orono, ME, USA.
Jeffrey A ThompsonDepartment of Computer Science, University of Southern Maine Portland, ME, USA.
Melanie L UfkinCenter for Molecular Medicine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute Scarborough, ME, USA ; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, University of Maine Orono, ME, USA.
Pradeep SathyanarayanaCenter for Molecular Medicine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute Scarborough, ME, USA ; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, University of Maine Orono, ME, USA.
Lucy LiawCenter for Molecular Medicine, Maine Medical Center Research Institute Scarborough, ME, USA ; Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, University of Maine Orono, ME, USA.
Clare Bates CongdonGraduate School of Biomedical Sciences and Engineering, University of Maine Orono, ME, USA ; Department of Computer Science, University of Southern Maine Portland, ME, USA.

Funding

Quantitative Biology Research InstituteP20GM103534 · NIGMS · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI AMOS, CHRISTOPHER I. · 2012 to 2016
$8.6M
QUANTITATIVE BIOLOGY RESEARCH INSTITUTEP20RR024475 · NCRR · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI MOORE, JASON H. · 2011 to 2011
$2.3M
COBRE in Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative MedicineP20GM103465 · NIGMS · MAINEHEALTH · PI WOJCHOWSKI, DON MICHAEL · 2012 to 2012
$2.0M
NCRR NIH HHS P20 RR024475NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103465NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103534
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human genome encodes for over 1800 microRNAs (miRNAs), which are short non-coding RNA molecules that function to regulate gene expression post-transcriptionally. Due to the potential for one miRNA to target multiple gene transcripts, miRNAs are recognized as a major mechanism to regulate gene expression and mRNA translation. Computational prediction of miRNA targets is a critical initial step in identifying miRNA:mRNA target interactions for experimental validation. The available tools for miRNA target prediction encompass a range of different computational approaches, from the modeling of physical interactions to the incorporation of machine learning. This review provides an overview of the major computational approaches to miRNA target prediction. Our discussion highlights three tools for their ease of use, reliance on relatively updated versions of miRBase, and range of capabilities, and these are DIANA-microT-CDS, miRanda-mirSVR, and TargetScan. In comparison across all miRNA target prediction tools, four main aspects of the miRNA:mRNA target interaction emerge as common features on which most target prediction is based: seed match, conservation, free energy, and site accessibility. This review explains these features and identifies how they are incorporated into currently available target prediction tools. MiRNA target prediction is a dynamic field with increasing attention on development of new analysis tools. This review attempts to provide a comprehensive assessment of these tools in a manner that is accessible across disciplines. Understanding the basis of these prediction methodologies will aid in user selection of the appropriate tools and interpretation of the tool output.

Indexed as

computational approachesconservationfree energymachine learningmicroRNAseed matchsite accessibilitytarget prediction

Identifiers

PMID24600468
PMCPMC3927079

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.