ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2025
Challenges in Applying DNA-Binding Protein Predictors to Biological Research.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2025. 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
DNA binding proteins play a crucial role in regulating gene expression, DNA replication, and chromatin organization. While many DNA-binding proteins have been identified, many unique DNA-binding proteins in non-model organisms and recently evolved lineage- or species-specific proteins remain uncharacterized or often lack experimental validation. In addition, genetic variants may alter previously known DNA-binding proteins, leading to loss of binding ability. To address this gap, various computational tools have been developed to predict DNA-binding proteins from protein sequences or structures. Yet, their real-world utility in biological research remains uncertain. To evaluate their effectiveness, we assessed the availability and predictive performance of existing tools using five real-world case studies. We found that most tools were web-based, offering accessibility to researchers without computational expertise. However, many suffered from poor maintenance, including frequent server connection problems, input errors, and long processing times. Among the ten tools that were functional and practical, we found that prediction scores often failed to reflect incorrect outputs, and multiple methods frequently produced the same erroneous predictions. Overall, even a small number of misclassifications can significantly distort biological interpretation, indicating that current DNA-binding prediction tools are not yet sufficiently reliable for empirical research.
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.