ArticleBMC genomics2016
A systematic, large-scale comparison of transcription factor binding site models.
Article in BMC genomics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- PTF-Vāc: An explainable and generative deep co-learning encoder-decoder system for ab initio discovery of plant transcription factor binding sites.Plant communications · 2025Article
- DMRU: generative deep learning to unravel condition-specific cytosine methylation in plants.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Benchmarking transcription factor binding site prediction models: a comparative analysis on synthetic and biological data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- PTBP2 - a gene with relevance for both Anorexia nervosa and body weight regulation.Translational psychiatry · 2022Article
- Technologies for profiling the impact of genomic variants on transcription factor binding.Medizinische Genetik : Mitteilungsblatt des Berufsverbandes Medizinische Genetik e.V · 2021Article
- Insight on Transcriptional Regulation of the Energy Sensing AMPK and Biosynthetic mTOR Pathway Genes.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2020Review
- Neurobiological functions of transcriptional enhancers.Nature neuroscience · 2020Review
- RegulationSpotter: annotation and interpretation of extratranscriptic DNA variants.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- A novel method for improved accuracy of transcription factor binding site prediction.Nucleic acids research · 2018Article
- CommonClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2017Article
- Erratum to: A systematic, large-scale comparison of transcription factor binding site models.BMC genomics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe modelling of gene regulation is a major challenge in biomedical research. This process is dominated by transcription factors (TFs) and mutations in their binding sites (TFBSs) may cause the misregulation of genes, eventually leading to disease. The consequences of DNA variants on TF binding are modelled in silico using binding matrices, but it remains unclear whether these are capable of accurately representing in vivo binding. In this study, we present a systematic comparison of binding models for 82 human TFs from three freely available sources: JASPAR matrices, HT-SELEX-generated models and matrices derived from protein binding microarrays (PBMs). We determined their ability to detect experimentally verified "real" in vivo TFBSs derived from ENCODE ChIP-seq data. As negative controls we chose random downstream exonic sequences, which are unlikely to harbour TFBS. All models were assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis.
resultsWhile the area-under-curve was low for most of the tested models with only 47 % reaching a score of 0.7 or higher, we noticed strong differences between the various position-specific scoring matrices with JASPAR and HT-SELEX models showing higher success rates than PBM-derived models. In addition, we found that while TFBS sequences showed a higher degree of conservation than randomly chosen sequences, there was a high variability between individual TFBSs.
conclusionsOur results show that only few of the matrix-based models used to predict potential TFBS are able to reliably detect experimentally confirmed TFBS. We compiled our findings in a freely accessible web application called ePOSSUM ( http:/mutationtaster.charite.de/ePOSSUM/ ) which uses a Bayes classifier to assess the impact of genetic alterations on TF binding in user-defined sequences. Additionally, ePOSSUM provides information on the reliability of the prediction using our test set of experimentally confirmed binding sites.
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.