Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33259518›Full record

ArticlePloS one2020

The impact of different negative training data on regulatory sequence predictions.

Louisa-Marie Krützfeldt, Max Schubach, Martin Kircher

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 42% of its field
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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Designing DNA With Tunable Regulatory Activity Using Discrete Diffusion.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  4. TSProm: Deciphering the Genomic Context of Tissue Specificity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. i4mC-GRU: Identifying DNA NComputational and structural biotechnology journal · 2023
    Article
  10. 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Louisa-Marie KrützfeldtCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3630-3727
Max SchubachCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2032-6679
Martin KircherCharité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-9278-5471
Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

A549 CellsCell Line, TumorChromatinDNAGenomeGenomicsHeLa CellsHep G2 CellsHumansK562 CellsMCF-7 CellsNeural Networks, ComputerPromoter Regions, GeneticRegulatory Sequences, Nucleic AcidSequence Analysis, DNASupport Vector MachineChromatinDNA

Identifiers

PMID33259518
PMCPMC7707526
OpenAlexW3107337679

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.