Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25927199›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2015

Optimally choosing PWM motif databases and sequence scanning approaches based on ChIP-seq data.

Michal Dabrowski, Norbert Dojer, Izabella Krystkowiak, Bozena Kaminska, Bartek Wilczynski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
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

5 authors.

Michal DabrowskiLaboratory of Bioinformatics, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Pasteura 3, Warszawa, 02-093, Poland. m.dabrowski@nencki.gov.pl.
Norbert DojerInstitute of Informatics, Univeristy of Warsaw, Banacha 2, Warszawa, 02-097, Poland. dojer@mimuw.edu.pl.
Izabella KrystkowiakLaboratory of Molecular Neurobiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Pasteura 3, Warszawa, 02-093, Poland. i.krystkowiak@nencki.gov.pl.
Bozena KaminskaLaboratory of Molecular Neurobiology, Nencki Institute of Experimental Biology, Pasteura 3, Warszawa, 02-093, Poland. b.kaminska@nencki.gov.pl.
Bartek WilczynskiInstitute of Informatics, Univeristy of Warsaw, Banacha 2, Warszawa, 02-097, Poland. bartek@mimuw.edu.pl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundFor many years now, binding preferences of Transcription Factors have been described by so called motifs, usually mathematically defined by position weight matrices or similar models, for the purpose of predicting potential binding sites. However, despite the availability of thousands of motif models in public and commercial databases, a researcher who wants to use them is left with many competing methods of identifying potential binding sites in a genome of interest and there is little published information regarding the optimality of different choices. Thanks to the availability of large number of different motif models as well as a number of experimental datasets describing actual binding of TFs in hundreds of TF-ChIP-seq pairs, we set out to perform a comprehensive analysis of this matter.

resultsWe focus on the task of identifying potential transcription factor binding sites in the human genome. Firstly, we provide a comprehensive comparison of the coverage and quality of models available in different databases, showing that the public databases have comparable TFs coverage and better motif performance than commercial databases. Secondly, we compare different motif scanners showing that, regardless of the database used, the tools developed by the scientific community outperform the commercial tools. Thirdly, we calculate for each motif a detection threshold optimizing the accuracy of prediction. Finally, we provide an in-depth comparison of different methods of choosing thresholds for all motifs a priori. Surprisingly, we show that selecting a common false-positive rate gives results that are the least biased by the information content of the motif and therefore most uniformly accurate.

conclusionWe provide a guide for researchers working with transcription factor motifs. It is supplemented with detailed results of the analysis and the benchmark datasets at http://bioputer.mimuw.edu.pl/papers/motifs/ .

Indexed as

Computational BiologyDatabases, FactualGenome, HumanPosition-Specific Scoring MatricesBinding SitesChromatin ImmunoprecipitationHumansNucleotide MotifsProtein BindingSequence Analysis, DNATranscription FactorsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID25927199
PMCPMC4436866

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.