4.7 Article

Recurrent Neural Network for Predicting Transcription Factor Binding Sites

期刊

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
卷 8, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-018-33321-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [61520106006, 31571364, 61732012, 61532008, U1611265, 61672382, 61772357, 61472173, 61572447, 61672203]
  2. China Postdoctoral Science Foundation [2016M601646, 2017M611619]
  3. BAGUI Scholar Program of Guangxi Province of China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

It is well known that DNA sequence contains a certain amount of transcription factors (TF) binding sites, and only part of them are identified through biological experiments. However, these experiments are expensive and time-consuming. To overcome these problems, some computational methods, based on k-mer features or convolutional neural networks, have been proposed to identify TF binding sites from DNA sequences. Although these methods have good performance, the context information that relates to TF binding sites is still lacking. Research indicates that standard recurrent neural networks (RNN) and its variants have better performance in time-series data compared with other models. In this study, we propose a model, named KEGRU, to identify TF binding sites by combining Bidirectional Gated Recurrent Unit (GRU) network with k-mer embedding. Firstly, DNA sequences are divided into k-mer sequences with a specified length and stride window. And then, we treat each k-mer as a word and pre-trained word representation model though word2vec algorithm. Thirdly, we construct a deep bidirectional GRU model for feature learning and classification. Experimental results have shown that our method has better performance compared with some state-of-the-art methods. Additional experiments about embedding strategy show that k-mer embedding will be helpful to enhance model performance. The robustness of KEGRU is proved by experiments with different k-mer length, stride window and embedding vector dimension.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据