↓ Skip to main content

Combining Results from Distinct MicroRNA Target Prediction Tools Enhances the Performance of Analyses

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
117 Mendeley
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
Combining Results from Distinct MicroRNA Target Prediction Tools Enhances the Performance of Analyses
Published in
Frontiers in Genetics, May 2017
DOI 10.3389/fgene.2017.00059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Arthur C. Oliveira, Luiz A. Bovolenta, Pedro G. Nachtigall, Marcos E. Herkenhoff, Ney Lemke, Danillo Pinhal

Abstract

Target prediction is generally the first step toward recognition of bona fide microRNA (miRNA)-target interactions in living cells. Several target prediction tools are now available, which use distinct criteria and stringency to provide the best set of candidate targets for a single miRNA or a subset of miRNAs. However, there are many false-negative predictions, and consensus about the optimum strategy to select and use the output information provided by the target prediction tools is lacking. We compared the performance of four tools cited in literature-TargetScan (TS), miRanda-mirSVR (MR), Pita, and RNA22 (R22), and we determined the most effective approach for analyzing target prediction data (individual, union, or intersection). For this purpose, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, precision, and correlation of these approaches using 10 miRNAs (miR-1-3p, miR-17-5p, miR-21-5p, miR-24-3p, miR-29a-3p, miR-34a-5p, miR-124-3p, miR-125b-5p, miR-145-5p, and miR-155-5p) and 1,400 genes (700 validated and 700 non-validated) as targets of these miRNAs. The four tools provided a subset of high-quality predictions and returned few false-positive predictions; however, they could not identify several known true targets. We demonstrate that union of TS/MR and TS/MR/R22 enhanced the quality of in silico prediction analysis of miRNA targets. We conclude that the union rather than the intersection of the aforementioned tools is the best strategy for maximizing performance while minimizing the loss of time and resources in subsequent in vivo and in vitro experiments for functional validation of miRNA-target interactions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 117 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 117 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 25%
Student > Master 16 14%
Student > Bachelor 15 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 11 9%
Researcher 7 6%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 27 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 35 30%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 14%
Computer Science 12 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 5%
Neuroscience 3 3%
Other 12 10%
Unknown 33 28%
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 02 June 2017.
All research outputs
#18,547,867
of 22,971,207 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Genetics
#7,102
of 12,008 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#236,827
of 310,608 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Genetics
#46
of 56 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,971,207 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 12,008 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% 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 310,608 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 56 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.