Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35021193›Full record

ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022

Critical assessment of computational tools for prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoter prediction.

Meng Zhang, Cangzhi Jia, Fuyi Li, Chen Li, Yan Zhu, Tatsuya Akutsu, Geoffrey I Webb, Quan Zou, Lachlan J M Coin, Jiangning Song

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Predicting Promoters in Multiple Prokaryotes with Prompt.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. 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

10 authors.

Meng ZhangSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.
Cangzhi JiaSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.
Fuyi LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Chen LiBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-1847-754X
Yan ZhuSchool of Science, Dalian Maritime University, Dalian 116026, China.
Tatsuya AkutsuBioinformatics Center, Institute for Chemical Research, Kyoto University, Kyoto 611-0011, Japan.
Geoffrey I WebbDepartment of Data Science and Artificial Intelligence, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.
Quan ZouInstitute of Fundamental and Frontier Sciences, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu, China.
Lachlan J M CoinThe Peter Doherty Institute for Infection and Immunity, The University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Jiangning SongBiomedicine Discovery Institute and Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-8031-9086

Funding

New Tricks for 'Old' Drugs: PK/PD of Polymyxin Nonantibiotic CombinationsR01AI111965 · NIAID · MONASH UNIVERSITY · PI LI, JIAN · 2014 to 2018
$4.3M
NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI111965
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Promoters are crucial regulatory DNA regions for gene transcriptional activation. Rapid advances in next-generation sequencing technologies have accelerated the accumulation of genome sequences, providing increased training data to inform computational approaches for both prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoter prediction. However, it remains a significant challenge to accurately identify species-specific promoter sequences using computational approaches. To advance computational support for promoter prediction, in this study, we curated 58 comprehensive, up-to-date, benchmark datasets for 7 different species (i.e. Escherichia coli, Bacillus subtilis, Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Arabidopsis thaliana, Zea mays and Drosophila melanogaster) to assist the research community to assess the relative functionality of alternative approaches and support future research on both prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoters. We revisited 106 predictors published since 2000 for promoter identification (40 for prokaryotic promoter, 61 for eukaryotic promoter, and 5 for both). We systematically evaluated their training datasets, computational methodologies, calculated features, performance and software usability. On the basis of these benchmark datasets, we benchmarked 19 predictors with functioning webservers/local tools and assessed their prediction performance. We found that deep learning and traditional machine learning-based approaches generally outperformed scoring function-based approaches. Taken together, the curated benchmark dataset repository and the benchmarking analysis in this study serve to inform the design and implementation of computational approaches for promoter prediction and facilitate more rigorous comparison of new techniques in the future.

Indexed as

Drosophila melanogasterEukaryotaAnimalsComputational BiologyEukaryotic CellsMiceProkaryotic CellsPromoter Regions, Geneticdeep learningmachine learningperformance evaluationpromoter identification

Identifiers

PMID35021193
PMCPMC8921625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.