↓ Skip to main content

A new method for enhancer prediction based on deep belief network

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
51 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
43 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
A new method for enhancer prediction based on deep belief network
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, October 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1828-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hongda Bu, Yanglan Gan, Yang Wang, Shuigeng Zhou, Jihong Guan

Abstract

Studies have shown that enhancers are significant regulatory elements to play crucial roles in gene expression regulation. Since enhancers are unrelated to the orientation and distance to their target genes, it is a challenging mission for scholars and researchers to accurately predicting distal enhancers. In the past years, with the high-throughout ChiP-seq technologies development, several computational techniques emerge to predict enhancers using epigenetic or genomic features. Nevertheless, the inconsistency of computational models across different cell-lines and the unsatisfactory prediction performance call for further research in this area. Here, we propose a new Deep Belief Network (DBN) based computational method for enhancer prediction, which is called EnhancerDBN. This method combines diverse features, composed of DNA sequence compositional features, DNA methylation and histone modifications. Our computational results indicate that 1) EnhancerDBN outperforms 13 existing methods in prediction, and 2) GC content and DNA methylation can serve as relevant features for enhancer prediction. Deep learning is effective in boosting the performance of enhancer prediction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 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 43 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 43 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 28%
Student > Master 5 12%
Other 3 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 5%
Other 6 14%
Unknown 12 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 7 16%
Computer Science 7 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 16%
Engineering 3 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 14 33%
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 30 October 2017.
All research outputs
#15,481,888
of 23,006,268 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,395
of 7,312 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#203,891
of 325,926 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#76
of 122 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,006,268 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,312 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 325,926 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 122 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.