↓ Skip to main content

A Discriminative Approach for Unsupervised Clustering of DNA Sequence Motifs

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
12 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
4 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
A Discriminative Approach for Unsupervised Clustering of DNA Sequence Motifs
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, March 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002958
Pubmed ID
Authors

Philip Stegmaier, Alexander Kel, Edgar Wingender, Jürgen Borlak

Abstract

Algorithmic comparison of DNA sequence motifs is a problem in bioinformatics that has received increased attention during the last years. Its main applications concern characterization of potentially novel motifs and clustering of a motif collection in order to remove redundancy. Despite growing interest in motif clustering, the question which motif clusters to aim at has so far not been systematically addressed. Here we analyzed motif similarities in a comprehensive set of vertebrate transcription factor classes. For this we developed enhanced similarity scores by inclusion of the information coverage (IC) criterion, which evaluates the fraction of information an alignment covers in aligned motifs. A network-based method enabled us to identify motif clusters with high correspondence to DNA-binding domain phylogenies and prior experimental findings. Based on this analysis we derived a set of motif families representing distinct binding specificities. These motif families were used to train a classifier which was further integrated into a novel algorithm for unsupervised motif clustering. Application of the new algorithm demonstrated its superiority to previously published methods and its ability to reproduce entrained motif families. As a result, our work proposes a probabilistic approach to decide whether two motifs represent common or distinct binding specificities.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 5%
France 2 3%
Sweden 1 2%
Spain 1 2%
Unknown 53 88%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 37%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 17%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 42%
Computer Science 14 23%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 9 15%
Engineering 4 7%
Arts and Humanities 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 3 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 30 March 2013.
All research outputs
#19,962,154
of 25,394,764 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,956
of 8,964 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,357
of 210,459 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#120
of 152 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,394,764 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,964 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 8th percentile – i.e., 8% 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 210,459 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% 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 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.