ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2023
Deep learning and support vector machines for transcription start site identification.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- micRoclean: an R package for decontaminating low-biomass 16S-rRNA microbiome data.Frontiers in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- From Sequence to Solution: Intelligent Learning Engine Optimization in Drug Discovery and Protein Analysis.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2024Article
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
Recognizing transcription start sites is key to gene identification. Several approaches have been employed in related problems such as detecting translation initiation sites or promoters, many of the most recent ones based on machine learning. Deep learning methods have been proven to be exceptionally effective for this task, but their use in transcription start site identification has not yet been explored in depth. Also, the very few existing works do not compare their methods to support vector machines (SVMs), the most established technique in this area of study, nor provide the curated dataset used in the study. The reduced amount of published papers in this specific problem could be explained by this lack of datasets. Given that both support vector machines and deep neural networks have been applied in related problems with remarkable results, we compared their performance in transcription start site predictions, concluding that SVMs are computationally much slower, and deep learning methods, specially long short-term memory neural networks (LSTMs), are best suited to work with sequences than SVMs. For such a purpose, we used the reference human genome GRCh38. Additionally, we studied two different aspects related to data processing: the proper way to generate training examples and the imbalanced nature of the data. Furthermore, the generalization performance of the models studied was also tested using the mouse genome, where the LSTM neural network stood out from the rest of the algorithms. To sum up, this article provides an analysis of the best architecture choices in transcription start site identification, as well as a method to generate transcription start site datasets including negative instances on any species available in Ensembl. We found that deep learning methods are better suited than SVMs to solve this problem, being more efficient and better adapted to long sequences and large amounts of data. We also create a transcription start site (TSS) dataset large enough to be used in deep learning experiments.
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.