Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31905774›Full record

ArticleGenes2019

Local Epigenomic Data are more Informative than Local Genome Sequence Data in Predicting Enhancer-Promoter Interactions Using Neural Networks.

Mengli Xiao, Zhong Zhuang, Wei Pan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Mengli XiaoDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Zhong ZhuangDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
Wei PanDivision of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1159-0582

Funding

Association analysis of rare variants with sequencing dataR01HL116720 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, WEI, PENG · 2013 to 2020
$3.3M
Powerful Inference and Prediction for Genetic AssociationR01HL105397 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, SHEN, XIAOTONG TOM · 2011 to 2018
$2.9M
Estimation and Inference of Gene Regulatory NetworksR01GM126002 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI, SHEN, XIAOTONG TOM · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
Statistical Methods for Genomic DataR01GM113250 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI · 2014 to 2017
$702k
Integrating genomic and imaging endophenotypes in GWASR21AG057038 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI PAN, WEI · 2017 to 2018
$405k
NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL105397NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL116720NIA NIH HHS R21 AG057038NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM113250NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM126002
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Enhancer-promoter interactions (EPIs) are crucial for transcriptional regulation. Mapping such interactions proves useful for understanding disease regulations and discovering risk genes in genome-wide association studies. Some previous studies showed that machine learning methods, as computational alternatives to costly experimental approaches, performed well in predicting EPIs from local sequence and/or local epigenomic data. In particular, deep learning methods were demonstrated to outperform traditional machine learning methods, and using DNA sequence data alone could perform either better than or almost as well as only utilizing epigenomic data. However, most, if not all, of these previous studies were based on randomly splitting enhancer-promoter pairs as training, tuning, and test data, which has recently been pointed out to be problematic; due to multiple and duplicating/overlapping enhancers (and promoters) in enhancer-promoter pairs in EPI data, such random splitting does not lead to independent training, tuning, and test data, thus resulting in model over-fitting and over-estimating predictive performance. Here, after correcting this design issue, we extensively studied the performance of various deep learning models with local sequence and epigenomic data around enhancer-promoter pairs. Our results confirmed much lower performance using either sequence or epigenomic data alone, or both, than reported previously. We also demonstrated that local epigenomic features were more informative than local sequence data. Our results were based on an extensive exploration of many convolutional neural network (CNN) and feed-forward neural network (FNN) structures, and of gradient boosting as a representative of traditional machine learning.

Indexed as

Cell LineComputational BiologyDeep LearningEnhancer Elements, GeneticEpigenomicsHumansK562 CellsNeural Networks, ComputerPromoter Regions, GeneticWhole Genome Sequencingboostingconvolutional neural networksdeep learningfeed-forward neural networksmachine learning

Identifiers

PMID31905774
PMCPMC7016741

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.