Cited by 2,873Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsGenomics and Phylogenetic Studies

Predicting the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins by deep learning

Open access
Alipanahi, Babak, Delong, Andrew, Weirauch, Matthew T, Frey, Brendan J·2015·Nature Biotechnology

Abstract

Knowing the sequence specificities of DNA- and RNA-binding proteins is essential for developing models of the regulatory processes in biological systems and for identifying causal disease variants. Here we show that sequence specificities can be ascertained from experimental data with 'deep learning' techniques, which offer a scalable, flexible and unified computational approach for pattern discovery. Using a diverse array of experimental data and evaluation metrics, we find that deep learning outperforms other state-of-the-art methods, even when training on in vitro data and testing on in vivo data. We call this approach DeepBind and have built a stand-alone software tool that is fully automatic and handles millions of sequences per experiment. Specificities determined by DeepBind are readily visualized as a weighted ensemble of position weight matrices or as a 'mutation map' that indicates how variations affect binding within a specific sequence.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/nbt.3300

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Prior work has shown minimal variation in performance between chromosomes on the ENCODE problem, so training and test distributions can be approximated as identical.

    “Prior work has shown that there is minimal variation in performance between chromosomes on this problem (Won et al., 2010; Alipanahi et al., 2015; Keilwagen et al., 2019), so we can approximate these training and test distributions as identical.”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Alipanahi et al., 2015

  • Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.

    “Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.”
  • Thus far, sequence-based models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.

    “Thus far, such models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.”
  • Massively parallel reporter assays coupled with machine learning have proven useful in addressing similar voids by producing quantitative biological insight that would be difficult to achieve through traditional approaches.

    “Massively parallel reporter assays (MPRAs) – methods that assess thousands to millions of sequence variants in a single experiment – coupled with machine learning have proven useful in addressing similar voids by producing quantitative biological insight that would be difficult to achieve through traditional approaches3–9.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alipanahi, B., Delong, A., Weirauch, M. T., & Frey, B. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Canadian Institute for Advanced Research (CA)
Corresponding author
Frey, Brendan J
Venue
Nature Biotechnology
Published
2015-07-27
Volume
33
Issue
8
Pages
831-838
ISSN
  • 0733-222X (ISSN-L)
  • 1087-0156
  • 1546-1696
OpenAlex
W1019830208
Cited by
2,873
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 171 · 2025: 238 · 2024: 288 · 2023: 266 · 2022: 331 · 2021: 370 · 2020: 325 · 2019: 341 · 2018: 284 · 2017: 165 · 2016: 80 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
78.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Biotechnology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (106690_1)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
Keywords
DNA-binding proteins, RNA-binding proteins, position weight matrices, protein-DNA interactions, RNA-protein interactions, deep learning, binding site prediction
MeSH terms
DNA-Binding Proteins, Software, RNA-Binding Proteins, Computational Biology, Sequence Analysis, Protein, Position-Specific Scoring Matrices

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review