↓ Skip to main content

Using Sequence-Specific Chemical and Structural Properties of DNA to Predict Transcription Factor Binding Sites

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

f1000
1 research highlight platform

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
87 Mendeley
citeulike
7 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
Using Sequence-Specific Chemical and Structural Properties of DNA to Predict Transcription Factor Binding Sites
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, November 2010
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1001007
Pubmed ID
Authors

Amy L. Bauer, William S. Hlavacek, Pat J. Unkefer, Fangping Mu

Abstract

An important step in understanding gene regulation is to identify the DNA binding sites recognized by each transcription factor (TF). Conventional approaches to prediction of TF binding sites involve the definition of consensus sequences or position-specific weight matrices and rely on statistical analysis of DNA sequences of known binding sites. Here, we present a method called SiteSleuth in which DNA structure prediction, computational chemistry, and machine learning are applied to develop models for TF binding sites. In this approach, binary classifiers are trained to discriminate between true and false binding sites based on the sequence-specific chemical and structural features of DNA. These features are determined via molecular dynamics calculations in which we consider each base in different local neighborhoods. For each of 54 TFs in Escherichia coli, for which at least five DNA binding sites are documented in RegulonDB, the TF binding sites and portions of the non-coding genome sequence are mapped to feature vectors and used in training. According to cross-validation analysis and a comparison of computational predictions against ChIP-chip data available for the TF Fis, SiteSleuth outperforms three conventional approaches: Match, MATRIX SEARCH, and the method of Berg and von Hippel. SiteSleuth also outperforms QPMEME, a method similar to SiteSleuth in that it involves a learning algorithm. The main advantage of SiteSleuth is a lower false positive rate.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 87 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 8 9%
Chile 1 1%
France 1 1%
Australia 1 1%
Israel 1 1%
Saudi Arabia 1 1%
Korea, Republic of 1 1%
Belgium 1 1%
Argentina 1 1%
Other 2 2%
Unknown 69 79%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 24 28%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 10 11%
Professor 8 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 7%
Other 15 17%
Unknown 6 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 48 55%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 13%
Computer Science 9 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 3%
Engineering 2 2%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 9 10%
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 November 2010.
All research outputs
#17,286,645
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#7,480
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#150,338
of 188,270 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#39
of 51 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% 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 11th percentile – i.e., 11% 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 188,270 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 51 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.