RankMotif++: a motif-search algorithm that accounts for relative ranks of K-mers in binding transcription factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: The sequence specificity of DNA-binding proteins is typically represented as a position weight matrix in which each base position contributes independently to relative affinity. Assessment of the accuracy and broad applicability of this representation has been limited by the lack of extensive DNA-binding data. However, new microarray techniques, in which preferences for all possible K-mers are measured, enable a broad comparison of both motif representation and methods for motif discovery. Here, we consider the problem of accounting for all of the binding data in such experiments, rather than the highest affinity binding data. We introduce the RankMotif++, an algorithm designed for finding motifs whenever sequences are associated with a semi-quantitative measure of protein-DNA-binding affinity. RankMotif++ learns motif models by maximizing the likelihood of a set of binding preferences under a probabilistic model of how sequence binding affinity translates into binding preference observations. Because RankMotif++ makes few assumptions about the relationship between binding affinity and the semi-quantitative readout, it is applicable to a wide variety of experimental assays of DNA-binding preference. RESULTS: By several criteria, RankMotif++ predicts binding affinity better than two widely used motif finding algorithms (MDScan, MatrixREDUCE) or more recently developed algorithms (PREGO, Seed and Wobble), and its performance is comparable to a motif model that separately assigns affinities to 8-mers. Our results validate the PWM model and provide an approximation of the precision and recall that can be expected in a genomic scan. AVAILABILITY: RankMotif++ is available upon request. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".