Bioinformatics Advance Access published online on August 5, 2004
Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/bth438
Bioinformatics © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1 Department of Computer Science & Lewis-Sigler Institute of Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: msingh{at}cs.princeton.edu.
Motivation: An important step in unravelling the transcriptional regulatory network of an organism is to identify, for each transcription factor, all of its DNA binding sites. Several approaches are commonly used in searching for a transcription factor's binding sites, including consensus sequences and position-specific scoring matrices (PSSMs). Additionally, methods that compute the average number of nucleotide matches between a putative site and all known sites can be employed. Such basic approaches can all be naturally extended by incorporating pairwise nucleotide dependencies and per-position information content. In this paper, we evaluate the effectiveness of these basic approaches and their extensions in finding binding sites for a transcription factor of interest without erroneously identifying other genomic sequences. Results: In cross-validation testing on a data set of E. coli transcription factors and their binding sites, we show that there are statistically significant differences in how well various methods identify transcription factor binding sites. The use of per-position information content improves the performance of all basic approaches. Furthermore, including local pairwise nucleotide dependencies within binding site models results in statistically significant performance improvements for approaches based on nucleotide matches. Based on our analysis, the best results when searching for DNA binding sites of a particular transcription factor are obtained by methods that incorporate both information content and local pairwise correlations. Availability: The software is available at http://compbio.cs.princeton.edu/bindsites.
Revised July 2, 2004
Accepted July 22, 2004
Article
Comparative analysis of methods for representing and searching for transcription factor binding sites
Abstract 
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  C. Yanover, M. Singh, and E. Zaslavsky M are better than one: an ensemble-based motif finder and its application to regulatory element prediction Bioinformatics, April 1, 2009; 25(7): 868 - 874. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. V. Persikov, R. Osada, and M. Singh Predicting DNA recognition by Cys2His2 zinc finger proteins Bioinformatics, January 1, 2009; 25(1): 22 - 29. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Hannenhalli Eukaryotic transcription factor binding sites--modeling and integrative search methods Bioinformatics, June 1, 2008; 24(11): 1325 - 1331. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. Johnson, R. J. Gamblin, L. Ooi, A. W. Bruce, I. J. Donaldson, D. R. Westhead, I. C. Wood, R. M. Jackson, and N. J. Buckley Identification of the REST regulon reveals extensive transposable element-mediated binding site duplication Nucleic Acids Res., September 1, 2006; 34(14): 3862 - 3877. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Hu, B. Li, and D. Kihara Limitations and potentials of current motif discovery algorithms Nucleic Acids Res., September 2, 2005; 33(15): 4899 - 4913. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|