Back

Assessing NGS-based computational methods for predicting transcriptional regulators with query gene sets

Lu, Z.; Xiao, X.; Zheng, Q.; Wang, X.; Xu, L.

2024-02-06 bioinformatics
10.1101/2024.02.01.578316 bioRxiv
Show abstract

This article provides an in-depth review of computational methods for predicting transcriptional regulators with query gene sets. Identification of transcriptional regulators is of utmost importance in many biological applications, including but not limited to elucidating biological development mechanisms, identifying key disease genes, and predicting therapeutic targets. Various computational methods based on next-generation sequencing (NGS) data have been developed in the past decade, yet no systematic evaluation of NGS-based methods has been offered. We classified these methods into two categories based on shared characteristics, namely library-based and region-based methods. We further conducted benchmark studies to evaluate the accuracy, sensitivity, coverage, and usability of NGS-based methods with molecular experimental datasets. Results show that BART, ChIP-Atlas, and Lisa have relatively better performance. Besides, we point out the limitations of NGS-based methods and explore potential directions for further improvement. Key pointsO_LIAn introduction to available computational methods for predicting functional TRs from a query gene set. C_LIO_LIA detailed walk-through along with practical concerns and limitations. C_LIO_LIA systematic benchmark of NGS-based methods in terms of accuracy, sensitivity, coverage, and usability, using 570 TR perturbation-derived gene sets. C_LIO_LINGS-based methods outperform motif-based methods. Among NGS methods, those utilizing larger databases and adopting region-centric approaches demonstrate favorable performance. BART, ChIP-Atlas, and Lisa are recommended as these methods have overall better performance in evaluated scenarios. C_LI

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.