4.7 Review

Evaluation of different computational methods on 5-methylcytosine sites identification

期刊

BRIEFINGS IN BIOINFORMATICS
卷 21, 期 3, 页码 982-995

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bib/bbz048

关键词

m5C site; feature description; computational method; webserver; iRNA-m5C

资金

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

5-Methylcytosine (m5C) plays an extremely important role in the basic biochemical process. With the great increase of identified m5C sites in a wide variety of organisms, their epigenetic roles become largely unknown. Hence, accurate identification of m5C site is a key step in understanding its biological functions. Over the past several years, more attentions have been paid on the identification of m5C sites in multiple species. In this work, we firstly summarized the current progresses in computational prediction of m5C sites and then constructed a more powerful and reliable model for identifying m5C sites. To train the model, we collected experimentally confirmed m5C data from Homo sapiens, Mus musculus, Saccharomyces cerevisiae and Arabidopsis thaliana, and compared the performances of different feature extraction methods and classification algorithms for optimizing prediction model. Based on the optimal model, a novel predictor called iRNA-m5C was developed for the recognition of m5C sites. Finally, we critically evaluated the performance of iRNA-m5C and compared it with existing methods. The result showed that iRNA-m5C could produce the best prediction performance. We hope that this paper could provide a guide on the computational identification of m5C site and also anticipate that the proposed iRNA-m5C will become a powerful tool for large scale identification of m5C sites.

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