ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Comparative analysis of models in predicting the effects of SNPs on TF-DNA binding using large-scale in vitro and in vivo data.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- FABIAN-variant 2026: improved prediction of the effects of DNA variants on transcription factor binding.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Autoimmune non-coding variants perturb transcription factor-cofactor complex assembly linked to enhancer activity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- A structure-guided approach to noncoding variant evaluation for transcription factor binding using AlphaFold 3.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Progress, clinical application and challenges of non-invasive prenatal testing for monogenic diseases.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2026Review
- Noncoding variants and sulcal patterns in congenital heart disease: Machine learning to predict functional impact.iScience · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Non-coding variants associated with complex traits can alter the motifs of transcription factor (TF)-deoxyribonucleic acid binding. Although many computational models have been developed to predict the effects of non-coding variants on TF binding, their predictive power lacks systematic evaluation. Here we have evaluated 14 different models built on position weight matrices (PWMs), support vector machines, ordinary least squares and deep neural networks (DNNs), using large-scale in vitro (i.e. SNP-SELEX) and in vivo (i.e. allele-specific binding, ASB) TF binding data. Our results show that the accuracy of each model in predicting SNP effects in vitro significantly exceeds that achieved in vivo. For in vitro variant impact prediction, kmer/gkm-based machine learning methods (deltaSVM_HT-SELEX, QBiC-Pred) trained on in vitro datasets exhibit the best performance. For in vivo ASB variant prediction, DNN-based multitask models (DeepSEA, Sei, Enformer) trained on the ChIP-seq dataset exhibit relatively superior performance. Among the PWM-based methods, tRap demonstrates better performance in both in vitro and in vivo evaluations. In addition, we find that TF classes such as basic leucine zipper factors could be predicted more accurately, whereas those such as C2H2 zinc finger factors are predicted less accurately, aligning with the evolutionary conservation of these TF classes. We also underscore the significance of non-sequence factors such as cis-regulatory element type, TF expression, interactions and post-translational modifications in influencing the in vivo predictive performance of TFs. Our research provides valuable insights into selecting prioritization methods for non-coding variants and further optimizing such models.
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.