ArticlePloS one2020
The impact of different negative training data on regulatory sequence predictions.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genomic language model for predicting enhancers and their allele-specific activity in the human genome.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- TSProm: deep learning framework to predict tissue-specific regulatory logic.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Designing DNA With Tunable Regulatory Activity Using Discrete Diffusion.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- TSProm: Deciphering the Genomic Context of Tissue Specificity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking transcription factor binding site prediction models: a comparative analysis on synthetic and biological data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Comprehensive analysis of computational approaches in plant transcription factors binding regions discovery.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Long extrachromosomal circular DNA identification by fusing sequence-derived features of physicochemical properties and nucleotide distribution patterns.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- CADD v1.7: using protein language models, regulatory CNNs and other nucleotide-level scores to improve genome-wide variant predictions.Nucleic acids research · 2024Article
- i4mC-GRU: Identifying DNA NComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023Article
- Modeling chromatin state from sequence across angiosperms using recurrent convolutional neural networks.The plant genome · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Regulatory regions, like promoters and enhancers, cover an estimated 5-15% of the human genome. Changes to these sequences are thought to underlie much of human phenotypic variation and a substantial proportion of genetic causes of disease. However, our understanding of their functional encoding in DNA is still very limited. Applying machine or deep learning methods can shed light on this encoding and gapped k-mer support vector machines (gkm-SVMs) or convolutional neural networks (CNNs) are commonly trained on putative regulatory sequences. Here, we investigate the impact of negative sequence selection on model performance. By training gkm-SVM and CNN models on open chromatin data and corresponding negative training dataset, both learners and two approaches for negative training data are compared. Negative sets use either genomic background sequences or sequence shuffles of the positive sequences. Model performance was evaluated on three different tasks: predicting elements active in a cell-type, predicting cell-type specific elements, and predicting elements' relative activity as measured from independent experimental data. Our results indicate strong effects of the negative training data, with genomic backgrounds showing overall best results. Specifically, models trained on highly shuffled sequences perform worse on the complex tasks of tissue-specific activity and quantitative activity prediction, and seem to learn features of artificial sequences rather than regulatory activity. Further, we observe that insufficient matching of genomic background sequences results in model biases. While CNNs achieved and exceeded the performance of gkm-SVMs for larger training datasets, gkm-SVMs gave robust and best results for typical training dataset sizes without the need of hyperparameter optimization.
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.