Modeling the quantitative specificity of DNA-binding proteins from example binding sites.
BACKGROUND
The binding of transcription factors to their respective DNA sites is a key component of every regulatory network. Predictions of transcription factor binding sites are usually based on models for transcription factor specificity. These models, in turn, are often based on examples of known binding sites.


RESULTS
Collections of binding sites are obtained in simulation experiments where the true model for the transcription factor is known and various sampling procedures are employed. We compare the accuracies of three different and commonly used methods for predicting the specificity of the transcription factor based on example binding sites. Different methods for constructing the models can lead to significant differences in the accuracy of the predictions and we show that commonly used methods can be positively misleading, even at large sample sizes and using noise-free data. Methods that minimize the number of predicted binding sequences are often significantly more accurate than the other methods tested.


CONCLUSIONS
Different methods for generating motifs from example binding sites can have significantly different numbers of false positive and false negative predictions. For many different sampling procedures models based on quadratic programming are the most accurate.
Homsi
Dana S F
DS
Department of Genetics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri, USA.
Gupta
Vineet
V
Stormo
Gary D
GD
D001665:Binding Sites; D004268:DNA-Binding Proteins / Q000378:metabolism*; D008962:Models, Theoretical; D012372:ROC Curve
D004268:DNA-Binding Proteins
Bioinformatics. 2002;18 Suppl 2:S100-9
12385991
Nat Rev Genet. 2004 Apr;5(4):276-87
15131651
Genome Res. 2004 Dec;14(12):2457-68
15574824
Nucleic Acids Res. 2004 Feb 27;32(4):e44
14990752
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 Oct 15;30(20):4442-51
12384591
J Bioinform Comput Biol. 2004 Jun;2(2):289-307
15297983
Bioessays. 2002 May;24(5):466-75
12001270
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Oct 1;31(19):e116
14500844
J Mol Biol. 1997 Apr 25;268(1):78-94
9149143
Bioessays. 2007 Aug;29(8):717-21
17620328
Bioinformatics. 2004 Apr 12;20(6):909-16
14751969
Nat Biotechnol. 1998 Oct;16(10):939-45
9788350
Nature. 2004 Sep 2;431(7004):99-104
15343339
Nat Biotechnol. 2006 Nov;24(11):1429-35
16998473
Genome Res. 2007 Mar;17(3):348-57
17284674
Bioinformatics. 2000 Jan;16(1):16-23
10812473
Genome Res. 2006 Dec;16(12):1455-64
17053094
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Jan;86(2):439-43
2911590
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Sep;86(17):6513-7
2771938
J Mol Biol. 1997 Aug 15;271(2):178-94
9268651
Bioinformatics. 2006 Jul 15;22(14):e141-9
16873464
Nat Protoc. 2009;4(3):393-411
19265799
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jan 1;34(Database issue):D95-7
16381983
J Comput Biol. 2004;11(2-3):377-94
15285897
J Mol Biol. 1986 Apr 5;188(3):415-31
3525846
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jan 1;34(Database issue):D108-10
16381825
Nucleic Acids Res. 1986 Aug 26;14(16):6661-79
3092188
Biometrics. 2002 Dec;58(4):981-8
12495153
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jul 19;34(12):3585-98
16855295
Comput Appl Biosci. 1993 Oct;9(5):499-509
8293321
Trends Biochem Sci. 1998 Mar;23(3):109-13
9581503
BMC Bioinformatics. 2007 Nov 01;8 Suppl 7:S21
18047721
Nucleic Acids Res. 2001 Jun 15;29(12):2471-8
11410653
Science. 2007 Jan 12;315(5809):233-7
17218526
Bioinformatics. 2005 Mar 1;21(5):596-600
15454407
Genome Res. 2006 Mar;16(3):405-13
16449500
Genome Biol. 2003;5(1):201
14709165
Genome Res. 2003 Nov;13(11):2381-90
14597652
Nucleic Acids Res. 2003 Jul 1;31(13):3576-9
12824369
Nucleic Acids Res. 2008 Sep;36(15):4863-71
18653527
J Mol Biol. 1998 Apr 24;278(1):167-81
9571041