ArticleBMC bioinformatics2018
Comparison of discriminative motif optimization using matrix and DNA shape-based models.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- TFscope: systematic analysis of the sequence features involved in the binding preferences of transcription factors.Genome biology · 2024Article
- Definition of the binding specificity of the T7 bacteriophage primase by analysis of a protein binding microarray using a thermodynamic model.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Discovering DNA shape motifs with multiple DNA shape features: generalization, methods, and validation.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- Advancing Regulatory Genomics With Machine Learning.Bioinformatics and biology insights · 2024Review
- DNA binding specificity of all four Saccharomyces cerevisiae forkhead transcription factors.Nucleic acids research · 2023Article
- Double DAP-seq uncovered synergistic DNA binding of interacting bZIP transcription factors.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Single base-pair resolution analysis of DNA binding motif with MoMotif reveals an oncogenic function of CTCF zinc-finger 1 mutation.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Article
- Sharing DNA-binding information across structurally similar proteins enables accurate specificity determination.Nucleic acids research · 2020Article
- Co-SELECT reveals sequence non-specific contribution of DNA shape to transcription factor binding in vitro.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- TFBSFootprinter: a multiomics tool for prediction of transcription factor binding sites in vertebrate species.TranscriptionArticle
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
Abstract
backgroundTranscription factor (TF) binding site specificity is commonly represented by some form of matrix model in which the positions in the binding site are assumed to contribute independently to the site's activity. The independence assumption is known to be an approximation, often a good one but sometimes poor. Alternative approaches have been developed that use k-mers (DNA "words" of length k) to account for the non-independence, and more recently DNA structural parameters have been incorporated into the models. ChIP-seq data are often used to assess the discriminatory power of motifs and to compare different models. However, to measure the improvement due to using more complex models, one must compare to optimized matrix models.
resultsWe describe a program "Discriminative Additive Model Optimization" (DAMO) that uses positive and negative examples, as in ChIP-seq data, and finds the additive position weight matrix (PWM) that maximizes the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUROC). We compare to a recent study where structural parameters, serving as features in a gradient boosting classifier algorithm, are shown to improve the AUROC over JASPAR position frequency matrices (PFMs). In agreement with the previous results, we find that adding structural parameters gives the largest improvement, but most of the gain can be obtained by an optimized PWM and nearly all of the gain can be obtained with a di-nucleotide extension to the PWM.
conclusionTo appropriately compare different models for TF bind sites, optimized models must be used. PWMs and their extensions are good representations of binding specificity for most TFs, and more complex models, including the incorporation of DNA shape features and gradient boosting classifiers, provide only moderate improvements for a few TFs.
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.