Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39623329›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2024

The evaluation of transcription factor binding site prediction tools in human and Arabidopsis genomes.

Dinithi V Wanniarachchi, Sameera Viswakula, Anushka M Wickramasuriya

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. TheInternational journal of hypertension · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Dinithi V WanniarachchiDepartment of Plant Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka.
Sameera ViswakulaDepartment of Statistics, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka.
Anushka M WickramasuriyaDepartment of Plant Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Colombo, Colombo 03, Sri Lanka. anushka@pts.cmb.ac.lk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe precise prediction of transcription factor binding sites (TFBSs) is pivotal for unraveling the gene regulatory networks underlying biological processes. While numerous tools have emerged for in silico TFBS prediction in recent years, the evolving landscape of computational biology necessitates thorough assessments of tool performance to ensure accuracy and reliability. Only a limited number of studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of TFBS prediction tools comprehensively. Thus, the present study focused on assessing twelve widely used TFBS prediction tools and four de novo motif discovery tools using a benchmark dataset comprising real, generic, Markov, and negative sequences. TFBSs of Arabidopsis thaliana and Homo sapiens genomes downloaded from the JASPAR database were implanted in these sequences and the performance of tools was evaluated using several statistical parameters at different overlap percentages between the lengths of known and predicted binding sites.

resultsOverall, the Multiple Cluster Alignment and Search Tool (MCAST) emerged as the best TFBS prediction tool, followed by Find Individual Motif Occurrences (FIMO) and MOtif Occurrence Detection Suite (MOODS). In addition, MotEvo and Dinucleotide Weight Tensor Toolbox (DWT-toolbox) demonstrated the highest sensitivity in identifying TFBSs at 90% and 80% overlap. Further, MCAST and DWT-toolbox managed to demonstrate the highest sensitivity across all three data types real, generic, and Markov. Among the de novo motif discovery tools, the Multiple Em for Motif Elicitation (MEME) emerged as the best performer. An analysis of the promoter regions of genes involved in the anthocyanin biosynthesis pathway in plants and the pentose phosphate pathway in humans, using the three best-performing tools, revealed considerable variation among the top 20 motifs identified by these tools.

conclusionThe findings of this study lay a robust groundwork for selecting optimal TFBS prediction tools for future research. Given the variability observed in tool performance, employing multiple tools for identifying TFBSs in a set of sequences is highly recommended. In addition, further studies are recommended to develop an integrated toolbox that incorporates TFBS prediction or motif discovery tools, aiming to streamline result precision and accuracy.

Indexed as

ArabidopsisGenome, PlantTranscription FactorsBinding SitesComputational BiologyGenome, HumanHumansSoftwareTranscription FactorsBioinformatics toolsPerformance evaluationTranscription factor binding sites

Identifiers

PMID39623329
PMCPMC11613939

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.