ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
Benchmarking recent computational tools for DNA-binding protein identification.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Caveat emptor: predicting and modeling protein-DNA recognition and binding via machine-learning computational approaches.Nucleic acids research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Identification of DNA-binding proteins (DBPs) is a crucial task in genome annotation, as it aids in understanding gene regulation, DNA replication, transcriptional control, and various cellular processes. In this paper, we conduct an unbiased benchmarking of 11 state-of-the-art computational tools as well as traditional tools such as ScanProsite, BLAST, and HMMER for identifying DBPs. We highlight the data leakage issue in conventional datasets leading to inflated performance. We introduce new evaluation datasets to support further development. Through a comprehensive evaluation pipeline, we identify potential limitations in models, feature extraction techniques, and training methods, and recommend solutions regarding these issues. We show that combining the predictions of the two best computational tools with BLAST-based prediction significantly enhances DBP identification capability. We provide this consensus method as user-friendly software. The datasets and software are available at https://github.com/Rafeed-bot/DNA_BP_Benchmarking.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.