↓ Skip to main content

RFECS: A Random-Forest Based Algorithm for Enhancer Identification from Chromatin State

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
208 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
324 Mendeley
citeulike
12 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
RFECS: A Random-Forest Based Algorithm for Enhancer Identification from Chromatin State
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002968
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nisha Rajagopal, Wei Xie, Yan Li, Uli Wagner, Wei Wang, John Stamatoyannopoulos, Jason Ernst, Manolis Kellis, Bing Ren

Abstract

Transcriptional enhancers play critical roles in regulation of gene expression, but their identification in the eukaryotic genome has been challenging. Recently, it was shown that enhancers in the mammalian genome are associated with characteristic histone modification patterns, which have been increasingly exploited for enhancer identification. However, only a limited number of cell types or chromatin marks have previously been investigated for this purpose, leaving the question unanswered whether there exists an optimal set of histone modifications for enhancer prediction in different cell types. Here, we address this issue by exploring genome-wide profiles of 24 histone modifications in two distinct human cell types, embryonic stem cells and lung fibroblasts. We developed a Random-Forest based algorithm, RFECS (Random Forest based Enhancer identification from Chromatin States) to integrate histone modification profiles for identification of enhancers, and used it to identify enhancers in a number of cell-types. We show that RFECS not only leads to more accurate and precise prediction of enhancers than previous methods, but also helps identify the most informative and robust set of three chromatin marks for enhancer prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 324 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 10 3%
Germany 3 <1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
China 2 <1%
Canada 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
France 1 <1%
Finland 1 <1%
Other 5 2%
Unknown 293 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 106 33%
Researcher 87 27%
Student > Master 26 8%
Professor 18 6%
Professor > Associate Professor 16 5%
Other 45 14%
Unknown 26 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 144 44%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 60 19%
Computer Science 45 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 4%
Engineering 7 2%
Other 24 7%
Unknown 32 10%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2013.
All research outputs
#15,739,529
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#6,754
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#121,221
of 209,241 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#99
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 209,241 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 152 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.