Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31874637›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2019

iEnhancer-ECNN: identifying enhancers and their strength using ensembles of convolutional neural networks.

Quang H Nguyen, Thanh-Hoang Nguyen-Vo, Nguyen Quoc Khanh Le, Trang T T Do, Susanto Rahardja, Binh P Nguyen

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. AttnW2V-Enhancer: Leveraging attention and Word2Vec for enhanced enhancer prediction.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

Quang H NguyenSchool of Information and Communication Technology, Hanoi University of Science and Technology, 1 Dai Co Viet, Hanoi 100000, Vietnam.
Thanh-Hoang Nguyen-VoSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, Gate 7, Kelburn Parade, Wellington, 6142, New Zealand.
Nguyen Quoc Khanh LeProfessional Master Program in Artificial Intelligence in Medicine, Taipei Medical University, Keelung Road, Da'an Distric, Taipei City, 106, Taiwan (R.O.C.).
Trang T T DoInstitute of Research and Development, Duy Tan University, Danang 550000, Vietnam.
Susanto RahardjaSchool of Marine Science and Technology, Northwestern Polytechnical University, 127 West Youyi Road, Xi'an 710072, China. susantorahardja@ieee.org.
Binh P NguyenSchool of Mathematics and Statistics, Victoria University of Wellington, Gate 7, Kelburn Parade, Wellington, 6142, New Zealand. binh.p.nguyen@vuw.ac.nz.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEnhancers are non-coding DNA fragments which are crucial in gene regulation (e.g. transcription and translation). Having high locational variation and free scattering in 98% of non-encoding genomes, enhancer identification is, therefore, more complicated than other genetic factors. To address this biological issue, several in silico studies have been done to identify and classify enhancer sequences among a myriad of DNA sequences using computational advances. Although recent studies have come up with improved performance, shortfalls in these learning models still remain. To overcome limitations of existing learning models, we introduce iEnhancer-ECNN, an efficient prediction framework using one-hot encoding and k-mers for data transformation and ensembles of convolutional neural networks for model construction, to identify enhancers and classify their strength. The benchmark dataset from Liu et al.'s study was used to develop and evaluate the ensemble models. A comparative analysis between iEnhancer-ECNN and existing state-of-the-art methods was done to fairly assess the model performance.

resultsOur experimental results demonstrates that iEnhancer-ECNN has better performance compared to other state-of-the-art methods using the same dataset. The accuracy of the ensemble model for enhancer identification (layer 1) and enhancer classification (layer 2) are 0.769 and 0.678, respectively. Compared to other related studies, improvements in the Area Under the Receiver Operating Characteristic Curve (AUC), sensitivity, and Matthews's correlation coefficient (MCC) of our models are remarkable, especially for the model of layer 2 with about 11.0%, 46.5%, and 65.0%, respectively.

conclusionsiEnhancer-ECNN outperforms other previously proposed methods with significant improvement in most of the evaluation metrics. Strong growths in the MCC of both layers are highly meaningful in assuring the stability of our models.

Indexed as

Enhancer Elements, GeneticNeural Networks, ComputerSequence Analysis, DNAClassificationConvolutional neural networkDeep learningEnhancerEnsembleIdentificationOne-hot encoding

Identifiers

PMID31874637
PMCPMC6929481

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.