4.6 Article

The value of position-specific priors in motif discovery using MEME

Journal

BMC BIOINFORMATICS
Volume 11, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-179

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. NIH/NCRR [R01 RR021692]
  2. ARC Centre of Excellence in Bioinformatics

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Position-specific priors have been shown to be a flexible and elegant way to extend the power of Gibbs sampler-based motif discovery algorithms. Information of many types-including sequence conservation, nucleosome positioning, and negative examples-can be converted into a prior over the location of motif sites, which then guides the sequence motif discovery algorithm. This approach has been shown to confer many of the benefits of conservation-based and discriminative motif discovery approaches on Gibbs sampler-based motif discovery methods, but has not previously been studied with methods based on expectation maximization (EM). Results: We extend the popular EM-based MEME algorithm to utilize position-specific priors and demonstrate their effectiveness for discovering transcription factor (TF) motifs in yeast and mouse DNA sequences. Utilizing a discriminative, conservation-based prior dramatically improves MEME's ability to discover motifs in 156 yeast TF ChIP-chip datasets, more than doubling the number of datasets where it finds the correct motif. On these datasets, MEME using the prior has a higher success rate than eight other conservation-based motif discovery approaches. We also show that the same type of prior improves the accuracy of motifs discovered by MEME in mouse TF ChIP-seq data, and that the motifs tend to be of slightly higher quality those found by a Gibbs sampling algorithm using the same prior. Conclusions: We conclude that using position-specific priors can substantially increase the power of EM-based motif discovery algorithms such as MEME algorithm.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available