ArticlePloS one2014
Predicting A-to-I RNA editing by feature selection and random forest.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- The first two whole mitochondrial genomes for the genus Dactylis species: assembly and comparative genomics analysis.BMC genomics · 2024Article
- Natural Selection on Exonic SNPs Shapes Allelic Expression Imbalance (AEI) Adaptability in Lung Cancer Progression.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Identification and Analysis of the Blood lncRNA Signature for Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Frontiers in genetics · 2020Article
- Identification and Analysis of Glioblastoma Biomarkers Based on Single Cell Sequencing.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2020Article
- The Methylation Pattern for Knee and Hip Osteoarthritis.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Article
- Identification of the copy number variant biomarkers for breast cancer subtypes.Molecular genetics and genomics : MGG · 2019Article
- The early detection of asthma based on blood gene expression.Molecular biology reports · 2019Article
- The blood transcriptional signature for active and latent tuberculosis.Infection and drug resistance · 2019Article
- The transcriptome difference between colorectal tumor and normal tissues revealed by single-cell sequencing.Journal of Cancer · 2019Article
- The Gene Expression Biomarkers for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease and Interstitial Lung Disease.Frontiers in genetics · 2019Article
- Cross talk of chromosome instability, CpG island methylator phenotype and mismatch repair in colorectal cancer.Oncology letters · 2018Article
- RFAmyloid: A Web Server for Predicting Amyloid Proteins.International journal of molecular sciences · 2018Article
- Identification of tumor-educated platelet biomarkers of non-small-cell lung cancer.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Identification of the predictive genes for the response of colorectal cancer patients to FOLFOX therapy.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
- Identification and Analysis of Blood Gene Expression Signature for Osteoarthritis With Advanced Feature Selection Methods.Frontiers in genetics · 2018Article
- Genetic differences among ethnic groups.BMC genomics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RNA editing is a post-transcriptional RNA process that provides RNA and protein complexity for regulating gene expression in eukaryotes. It is challenging to predict RNA editing by computational methods. In this study, we developed a novel method to predict RNA editing based on a random forest method. A careful feature selection procedure was performed based on the Maximum Relevance Minimum Redundancy (mRMR) and Incremental Feature Selection (IFS) algorithms. Eighteen optimal features were selected from the 77 features in our dataset and used to construct a final predictor. The accuracy and MCC (Matthews correlation coefficient) values for the training dataset were 0.866 and 0.742, respectively; for the testing dataset, the accuracy and MCC were 0.876 and 0.576, respectively. The performance was higher using 18 features than all 77, suggesting that a small feature set was sufficient to achieve accurate prediction. Analysis of the 18 features was performed and may shed light on the mechanism and dominant factors of RNA editing, providing a basis for future experimental validation.
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.