The relative performance of PWMs and DWMs in predicting binding targets in yeast.

2010-03-22T02:15:17Z (GMT) by Rahul Siddharthan
<p>The figure shows Pearson correlation coefficients of binding site predictions with ChIP binding -values reported by Harbison <i>et al.. </i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009722#pone.0009722-Harbison1" target="_blank">[19]</a>, using the “raw” position weight matrices from MacIsaac <i>et al.. </i><a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009722#pone.0009722-MacIsaac1" target="_blank">[20]</a>, dinucleotide weight matrices with the same “width” as the “raw” matrices, and dinucleotide weight matrices with a 10bp “flanking sequence” on either side of the input matrices. Details are in <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009722#s4" target="_blank">Materials and Methods</a>.</p>