4.7 Article

Identify origin of replication in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using two-step feature selection technique

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 35, 期 12, 页码 2075-2083

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty943

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Nature Scientific Foundation of China [61772119, 31771471]
  2. Natural Science Foundation for Distinguished Young Scholar of Hebei Province [C2017209244]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China [ZYGX2015Z006, ZYGX2016J118, ZYGX2016J125, ZYGX2016J223]
  4. Science Strength Promotion Program of UESTC

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation DNA replication is a key step to maintain the continuity of genetic information between parental generation and offspring. The initiation site of DNA replication, also called origin of replication (ORI), plays an extremely important role in the basic biochemical process. Thus, rapidly and effectively identifying the location of ORI in genome will provide key clues for genome analysis. Although biochemical experiments could provide detailed information for ORI, it requires high experimental cost and long experimental period. As good complements to experimental techniques, computational methods could overcome these disadvantages. Results Thus, in this study, we developed a predictor called iORI-PseKNC2.0 to identify ORIs in the Saccharomyces cerevisiae genome based on sequence information. The PseKNC including 90 physicochemical properties was proposed to formulate ORI and non-ORI samples. In order to improve the accuracy, a two-step feature selection was proposed to exclude redundant and noise information. As a result, the overall success rate of 88.53% was achieved in the 5-fold cross-validation test by using support vector machine. Availability and implementation Based on the proposed model, a user-friendly webserver was established and can be freely accessed at http://lin-group.cn/server/iORI-PseKNC2.0. The webserver will provide more convenience to most of wet-experimental scholars.

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