ArticleF1000Research2015
Transcription factor motif quality assessment requires systematic comparative analysis.
Article in F1000Research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Genome-wide meta-analysis implicates mediators of hair follicle development and morphogenesis in risk for severe acne.Nature communications · 2018Pooled it
- Cross-platform motif discovery and benchmarking to explore binding specificities of poorly studied human transcription factors.Communications biology · 2025Article
- Cross-platform DNA motif discovery and benchmarking to explore binding specificities of poorly studied human transcription factors.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Transcriptional Coactivator BOB1 (OBF1, OCA-B) Modulates the Specificity of DNA Recognition by the POU-Domain Factors OCT1 and OCT2 in a Monomeric Configuration.Biomolecules · 2024Article
- Guidelines on the performance evaluation of motif recognition methods in bioinformatics.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- Insights gained from a comprehensive all-against-all transcription factor binding motif benchmarking study.Genome biology · 2020Article
- Evaluating tools for transcription factor binding site prediction.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
- Negative selection maintains transcription factor binding motifs in human cancer.BMC genomics · 2016Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcription factor (TF) binding site prediction remains a challenge in gene regulatory research due to degeneracy and potential variability in binding sites in the genome. Dozens of algorithms designed to learn binding models (motifs) have generated many motifs available in research papers with a subset making it to databases like JASPAR, UniPROBE and Transfac. The presence of many versions of motifs from the various databases for a single TF and the lack of a standardized assessment technique makes it difficult for biologists to make an appropriate choice of binding model and for algorithm developers to benchmark, test and improve on their models. In this study, we review and evaluate the approaches in use, highlight differences and demonstrate the difficulty of defining a standardized motif assessment approach. We review scoring functions, motif length, test data and the type of performance metrics used in prior studies as some of the factors that influence the outcome of a motif assessment. We show that the scoring functions and statistics used in motif assessment influence ranking of motifs in a TF-specific manner. We also show that TF binding specificity can vary by source of genomic binding data. We also demonstrate that information content of a motif is not in isolation a measure of motif quality but is influenced by TF binding behaviour. We conclude that there is a need for an easy-to-use tool that presents all available evidence for a comparative analysis.
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.