ArticlePeerJ2022
Context dependent prediction in DNA sequence using neural networks.
Article in PeerJ, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
One way to better understand the structure in DNA is by learning to predict the sequence. Here, we trained a model to predict the missing base at any given position, given its left and right flanking contexts. Our best-performing model was a neural network that obtained an accuracy close to 54% on the human genome, which is 2% points better than modelling the data using a Markov model. In likelihood-ratio tests, the neural network performed significantly better than any of the alternative models by a large margin. We report on where the accuracy was obtained, first observing that the performance appeared to be uniform over the chromosomes. The models performed best in repetitive sequences, as expected, although their performance far from random in the more difficult coding sections, the proportions being ~70:40%. We further explored the sources of the accuracy, Fourier transforming the predictions revealed weak but clear periodic signals. In the human genome the characteristic periods hinted at connections to nucleosome positioning. We found similar periodic signals in GC/AT content in the human genome, which to the best of our knowledge have not been reported before. On other large genomes similarly high accuracy was found, while lower predictive accuracy was observed on smaller genomes. Only in the mouse genome did we see periodic signals in the same range as in the human genome, though weaker and of a different type. This indicates that the sources of these signals are other or more than nucleosome arrangement. Interestingly, applying a model trained on the mouse genome to the human genome resulted in a performance far below that of the human model, except in the difficult coding regions. Despite the clear outcomes of the likelihood-ratio tests, there is currently a limited superiority of the neural network methods over the Markov model. We expect, however, that there is great potential for better modelling DNA using different neural network architectures.
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.