↓ Skip to main content

A systematic, large-scale comparison of transcription factor binding site models

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, May 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (65th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (68th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
61 Mendeley
citeulike
1 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 systematic, large-scale comparison of transcription factor binding site models
Published in
BMC Genomics, May 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12864-016-2729-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Daniela Hombach, Jana Marie Schwarz, Peter N. Robinson, Markus Schuelke, Dominik Seelow

Abstract

The modelling of gene regulation is a major challenge in biomedical research. This process is dominated by transcription factors (TFs) and mutations in their binding sites (TFBSs) may cause the misregulation of genes, eventually leading to disease. The consequences of DNA variants on TF binding are modelled in silico using binding matrices, but it remains unclear whether these are capable of accurately representing in vivo binding. In this study, we present a systematic comparison of binding models for 82 human TFs from three freely available sources: JASPAR matrices, HT-SELEX-generated models and matrices derived from protein binding microarrays (PBMs). We determined their ability to detect experimentally verified "real" in vivo TFBSs derived from ENCODE ChIP-seq data. As negative controls we chose random downstream exonic sequences, which are unlikely to harbour TFBS. All models were assessed by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) analysis. While the area-under-curve was low for most of the tested models with only 47 % reaching a score of 0.7 or higher, we noticed strong differences between the various position-specific scoring matrices with JASPAR and HT-SELEX models showing higher success rates than PBM-derived models. In addition, we found that while TFBS sequences showed a higher degree of conservation than randomly chosen sequences, there was a high variability between individual TFBSs. Our results show that only few of the matrix-based models used to predict potential TFBS are able to reliably detect experimentally confirmed TFBS. We compiled our findings in a freely accessible web application called ePOSSUM ( http:/mutationtaster.charite.de/ePOSSUM/ ) which uses a Bayes classifier to assess the impact of genetic alterations on TF binding in user-defined sequences. Additionally, ePOSSUM provides information on the reliability of the prediction using our test set of experimentally confirmed binding sites.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 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 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Denmark 1 2%
Canada 1 2%
Unknown 59 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Other 7 11%
Unknown 10 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 39%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 28%
Engineering 2 3%
Computer Science 2 3%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Other 4 7%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 25 May 2016.
All research outputs
#7,849,143
of 25,139,853 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#3,450
of 11,172 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#114,554
of 341,049 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#62
of 196 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,139,853 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,172 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
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 341,049 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 65% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 196 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.