ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2022
Critical assessment of computational tools for prokaryotic and eukaryotic promoter prediction.
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.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- PromoterAtlas: decoding regulatory sequences across Gammaproteobacteria using a transformer model.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Characterization of archaeal promoters using explainable and web-based CNN model.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Predicting Promoters in Multiple Prokaryotes with Prompt.Interdisciplinary sciences, computational life sciences · 2024Article
- Review
- CryptKeeper: a negative design tool for reducing unintentional gene expression in bacteria.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- iProL: identifying DNA promoters from sequence information based on Longformer pre-trained model.BMC bioinformatics · 2024Article
- Recognition of cyanobacteria promoters via Siamese network-based contrastive learning under novel non-promoter generation.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
- CDBProm: the Comprehensive Directory of Bacterial Promoters.NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2024Article
- CryptKeeper: a negative design tool for reducing unintentional gene expression in bacteria.Synthetic biology (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- In Silico Verification of Predicted Potential Promoter Sequences in the Rice (Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- PromGER: Promoter Prediction Based on Graph Embedding and Ensemble Learning for Eukaryotic Sequence.Genes · 2023Article
- csORF-finder: an effective ensemble learning framework for accurate identification of multi-species coding short open reading frames.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2022Article
- iPro-WAEL: a comprehensive and robust framework for identifying promoters in multiple species.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Deciphering the molecular basis of tissue-specific gene expression in plants: Can synthetic biology help?Current opinion in plant biology · 2022Review
- TSSNote-CyaPromBERT: Development of an integrated platform for highly accurate promoter prediction and visualization ofFrontiers in genetics · 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
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.