↓ Skip to main content

Effective computational detection of piRNAs using n-gram models and support vector machine

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

About this Attention Score

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

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
10 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
Effective computational detection of piRNAs using n-gram models and support vector machine
Published in
BMC Bioinformatics, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12859-017-1896-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Chun-Chi Chen, Xiaoning Qian, Byung-Jun Yoon

Abstract

Piwi-interacting RNAs (piRNAs) are a new class of small non-coding RNAs that are known to be associated with RNA silencing. The piRNAs play an important role in protecting the genome from invasive transposons in the germline. Recent studies have shown that piRNAs are linked to the genome stability and a variety of human cancers. Due to their clinical importance, there is a pressing need for effective computational methods that can be used for computational identification of piRNAs. However, piRNAs lack conserved structural motifs and show relatively low sequence similarity across different species, which makes accurate computational prediction of piRNAs challenging. In this paper, we propose a novel method, piRNAdetect, for reliable computational prediction of piRNAs in genome sequences. In the proposed method, we first classify piRNA sequences in the training dataset that share similar sequence motifs and extract effective predictive features through the use of n-gram models (NGMs). The extracted NGM-based features are then used to construct a support vector machine that can be used for accurate prediction of novel piRNAs. We demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed piRNAdetect algorithm through extensive performance evaluation based on piRNAs in three different species - H. sapiens, R. norvegicus, and M. musculus - obtained from the piRBase and show that piRNAdetect outperforms the current state-of-the-art methods in terms of efficiency and accuracy.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 10 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 10 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 2 20%
Student > Bachelor 2 20%
Professor 1 10%
Unknown 5 50%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 10%
Computer Science 1 10%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 10%
Unknown 7 70%
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 04 January 2018.
All research outputs
#15,690,772
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Bioinformatics
#5,481
of 7,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#271,115
of 443,579 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Bioinformatics
#90
of 143 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 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 7,384 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. 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 443,579 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 143 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.