↓ Skip to main content

Comparative evaluation of DNase-seq footprint identification strategies

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, August 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (70th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
62 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
Comparative evaluation of DNase-seq footprint identification strategies
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, August 2014
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2014.00278
Pubmed ID
Authors

Iros Barozzi, Pranami Bora, Marco J. Morelli

Abstract

DNase I is an enzyme preferentially cleaving DNA in highly accessible regions. Recently, Next-Generation Sequencing has been applied to DNase I assays (DNase-seq) to obtain genome-wide maps of these accessible chromatin regions. With high-depth sequencing, DNase I cleavage sites can be identified with base-pair resolution, revealing the presence of protected regions ("footprints"), corresponding to bound molecules on the DNA. Integrating footprint positions close to transcription start sites with motif analysis can reveal the presence of regulatory interactions between specific transcription factors (TFs) and genes. However, this inference heavily relies on the accuracy of the footprint call and on the sequencing depth of the DNase-seq experiment. Using ENCODE data, we comprehensively evaluate the performances of two recent footprint callers (Wellington and DNaseR) and one metric (the Footprint Occupancy Score, or FOS), and assess the consequences of different footprint calls on the reconstruction of TF-TF regulatory networks. We rate Wellington as the method of choice among those tested: not only its predictions are the best in terms of accuracy, but also the properties of the inferred networks are robust against sequencing depth.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 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 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Turkey 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Sweden 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 22 35%
Student > Ph. D. Student 13 21%
Student > Master 9 15%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Professor 4 6%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 2 3%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 33 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 18%
Computer Science 4 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 2 3%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 3 5%
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 04 September 2014.
All research outputs
#6,406,498
of 22,760,687 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#1,958
of 11,758 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,337
of 230,675 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#34
of 138 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,760,687 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,758 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 230,675 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 138 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 70% of its contemporaries.