ArticlePeerJ2023
Validating a re-implementation of an algorithm to integrate transcriptome and ChIP-seq data.
Article in PeerJ, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcription factor binding to a gene regulatory region induces or represses its expression. Binding and expression target analysis (BETA) integrates the binding and gene expression data to predict this function. First, the regulatory potential of the factor is modeled based on the distance of its binding sites from the transcription start sites in a decay function. Then the differential expression statistics from an experiment where this factor was perturbed represent the binding effect. The rank product of the two values is employed to order in importance. This algorithm was originally implemented in Python. We reimplemented the algorithm in R to take advantage of existing data structures and other tools for downstream analyses. Here, we attempted to replicate the findings in the original BETA paper. We applied the new implementation to the same datasets using default and varying inputs and cutoffs. We successfully replicated the original results. Moreover, we showed that the method was appropriately influenced by varying the input and was robust to choices of cutoffs in statistical testing.
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.