iDNA6mA-Rice: A Computational Tool for Detecting N6-Methyladenine Sites in Rice

Abstract

DNA N6-methyladenine (6mA) is a dominant DNA modification form and involved in many biological functions. The accurate genome-wide identification of 6mA sites may increase understanding of its biological functions. Experimental methods for 6mA detection in eukaryotes genome are laborious and expensive. Therefore, it is necessary to develop computational methods to identify 6mA sites on a genomic scale, especially for plant genomes. Based on this consideration, the study aims to develop a machine learning-based method of predicting 6mA sites in the rice genome. We initially used mono-nucleotide binary encoding to formulate positive and negative samples. Subsequently, the machine learning algorithm named Random Forest was utilized to perform the classification for identifying 6mA sites. Our proposed method could produce an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.964 with an overall accuracy of 0.917, as indicated by the fivefold cross-validation test. Furthermore, an independent dataset was established to assess the generalization ability of our method. Finally, an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.981 was obtained, suggesting that the proposed method had good performance of predicting 6mA sites in the rice genome. For the convenience of retrieving 6mA sites, on the basis of the computational method, we built a freely accessible web server named iDNA6mA-Rice at http://lin-group.cn/server/iDNA6mA-Rice.

Introduction

Methylated bases, such as N4-methylcytosine (4mC), N6-methyladenine (6mA), and 5-methylcytosine (5mC), exist in genomic DNA of diverse species (Cheng, 1995; Ratel et al., 2006). All these DNA methylation modifications play important roles in controlling many biological functions (Tang et al., 2018b). As an epigenetic mechanism, DNA methylation refers to a process that methyl groups are transferred to DNA molecules and is essential in the normal development of organisms (Bergman and Cedar, 2013; Smith and Meissner, 2013; von Meyenn et al., 2016). Through DNA methylation, the activity of a DNA segment can be changed without changing its sequence. For example, gene transcription can be repressed when DNA methylation occurs at its promoter (Bird, 1992).

As shown in Figure 1, after a methyl group is transferred to the sixth position of adenine ring, under the catalysis action of methyltransferases, 6mA is formed. 6mA is a noncanonical DNA modification form in different eukaryotes at low levels (Fu et al., 2015; Greer et al., 2015; Zhang et al., 2015; Koziol et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016; Mondo et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2017). 6mA in prokaryotes and eukaryotes shows similar characteristics (Heyn and Esteller, 2015). It has diverse functions, including guiding the discrimination of an original DNA strand from a newly synthesized DNA strand (Wion and Casadesus, 2006), regulating gene transcription (Cheng et al., 2016), repressing transposable elements, and reducing the stability of base pairings (Fang et al., 2012). Surprisingly, the methylation protection is an inheritable state, although it may be changed by environmental factors (Wion and Casadesus, 2006). Therefore, it is worth underscoring the importance of 6mA throughout generations.

Figure 1

Recent studies revealed the genome-wide distributions of 6mA in Tetrahymena (Wang et al., 2017), Chlamydomonas reinhardtii (Fu et al., 2015), Drosophila melanogaster (Zhang et al., 2015), Caenorhabditis elegans (Greer et al., 2015), vertebrates (e.g. frog and fish) (Koziol et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016), mammals (e.g., human and Mus. musculus) (Wu et al., 2016; Yao et al., 2017; Xiao et al., 2018; Zou et al., 2018a), fungi (Mondo et al., 2017), and vascular plants (e.g. rice) (Zhou et al., 2018). Although these studies testified the presence of 6mA in eukaryotic genomes based on experimental means and indeed achieved encouraging results, the implication of 6mA in epigenetics is still obscure (Ratel et al., 2006). In addition, in eukaryotes, the level of 6mA was so low that it could only be detected by advanced techniques. In rice, with two antibodies, based on SMRT and IP-seq, Zhou et al. (2018) found that AGG-rich sequences were the most significantly enriched for 6mA. Thus, the computational prediction of 6mA sites may be a good choice to reduce experimental costs and guide the experimental study on plant 6mA.

In fact, several computational methods have been applied in the identification of DNA methylation sites. Based on the data of experimentally confirmed 4mC sites,Chen et al. (2017) firstly developed a predictor called iDNA4mC to identify 4mC sites, in which DNA samples were formulated with nucleotide frequency and nucleotide chemical property. Then, based on the dataset (Chen et al., 2017), He et al. (2018a) established another tool named 4mCPred, and Wei et al. (2018b) built a new predictor (4mcPred-SVM) to predict 4mC sites. Recently, a free tool called iDNA6mA-PseKNC was constructed for the computational prediction of 6mA sites (Feng et al., 2019). The tool could be used to identify 6mA sites in Mus. musculus genome. However, the tool could not provide valuable data contained in plant genomes due to the difference between mammal and plant genomes. Thus, it is necessary to develop a 6mA site predictor for plant genomes. Recently, a tool named i6mA-Pred was constructed to identify 6mA site in rice (Chen et al., 2019). The tool could realize the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (auROC) of 0.886 in jackknife cross-validation. However, the database used was not large enough, and the accuracy should be further improved.

In view of the aforementioned descriptions, this study aims to develop a new method and establish an efficient tool to identify 6mA sites in the rice genome. A flowchart is shown in Figure 2. We firstly collected the existing data in the rice genome, including experimentally confirmed non-6mA sequences and 6mA sequences and built a benchmark dataset based on the report by Zhou et al. (2018). Subsequently, three kinds of sequence encoding features were proposed to formulate samples as the input of the Random Forest algorithm (RF) to discriminate 6mA sequences from non-6mA sequences. Then, several experiments were performed to investigate the prediction capability of the proposed method. Finally, on the basis of the method, we established a predictor called iDNA6mA-Rice.

Figure 2

Materials and Methods

Benchmark Dataset

A benchmark dataset is important in building a reliable prediction model. By combining immunoprecipitation with single-molecular real-time sequencing approach, 6mA sites in the rice genome had been detected (Zhou et al., 2018) and deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) database, which was created and is maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (Long et al., 2019). Therefore, a total of 265,290 6mA sites containing sequences were obtained from GEO. All of these sequences in GEO are 41 nt long with the 6mA site at the center. To reduce homologous bias and avoid redundancy (Dao et al., 2018; Su et al., 2018; Tang et al., 2018a; Zou et al., 2018b; Feng et al., 2019), sequences with the similarity above 80% were excluded by using the CD-HIT program (Li and Godzik, 2006). Finally, we obtained 154,000 6mA sites-contained sequences as positive samples.

Negative samples were collected from NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/10) and according to the following three rules. Firstly, the 41-nt long sequences with adenine at the center were selected. Secondly, experimental results proved that the centered adenine was not methylated. Thirdly, Zhou et al. (2018) believed that 6mA most frequently occurred at GAGG, AGG, and AG motifs, so we statistically analyzed the ratios of GAGG, AGG, and AG motifs in positive samples and reported the result in Table 1. Based on the result in Table 1, we selected the negative samples with the same ratio of motifs so that the negative data were more objective. In this way, a large number of negative samples were obtained. In machine learning processes, imbalanced datasets lead to unreliable results. To balance positive and negative samples, 154,000 non-modified segments were randomly picked out as negative samples in model training. Finally, the benchmark dataset contained 154,000 positive samples and 154,000 negative samples. The benchmark dataset S is formulated as:

where the S⁺contains 154,000 positive samples; the S⁻ contains 154,000 negative samples; is the symbol of “union” in the set theory. The benchmark dataset is available at http://lin-group.cn/server/iDNA6mA-Rice.

Feature Descriptions

Feature extraction is a key step in establishing an excellent predictor (Song et al., 2012; Zuo et al., 2017; Stephenson et al., 2018; Manavalan et al., 2018a; Wei et al., 2018a; Manavalan et al., 2018b; Song et al., 2018b; Song et al., 2018c). The following three feature extraction techniques were adopted to formulate 6mA samples.

K-tuple Nucleotide Frequency Component

As a special form of PseKNC (Guo et al., 2014; Lin et al., 2014), the K-tuple nucleotide frequency component has been widely used in a variety of bioinformatics problems (Lin and Li, 2011; Yang et al., 2018b).

A DNA sequence D can be expressed as:

where R_i represents the nucleotide [Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C), and Guanine (G)] at the ith position; L is the length of sequence D and equals to 41 in this study. The strategy of k-tuple composition is to convert each sample into a 4^k dimension vector expressed as:

where T represents the transposition of the vector and represents the frequency of the ith k-tuple composition in the DNA sequence sample. The feature has been applied in DNA element identification (Wei et al., 2018b). Here, we set k = 2, 3, 4.

Mono-Nucleotide Binary Encoding

The second feature technique is to transfer nucleotide into a binary code formulated as:

Thus, an arbitrary DNA sequence with L nucleotides can be described as a vector of 4 × L features (Song et al., 2018a; Wei et al., 2018b).

Natural Vector

In the natural vector method proposed by Deng et al. (2011), sequences are represented as points in high-dimensional space based on statistical characteristics (Liu et al., 2018). With the sequence data, such as occurrence frequencies, the central moments, and average positions of nucleotides, the natural vector method is used to describe the distributions and numbers of nucleotides, cluster sequences, and predict their various attributes.

Based on Eq. (3), each nucleotide R can be defined as follows:

where W_R (R_i) = 1 if D_i = R and W_R (D_i) = 0, otherwise

where n_R represents the number of nucleotide R in the DNA sequence D:

where S_[R][i] represents the distance from the first nucleotide to the ith nucleotide R.

where T_R represents the total distance of each set of the four nucleotides.

where μ_R represents the mean position of the nucleotide R.

Finally, the second-order normalized central moments can be defined as:

Then, the natural vector of sequence D is expressed as (Tian et al., 2018):

Random Forest Algorithm

The RF algorithm has been extensively applied in computational biology (Zhao et al., 2014; Zhang et al., 2016; Lv et al., 2019), since it is a flexible and practical machine learning method and can deal with many input variables without variable deletion and provide an internal unbiased estimate of the generalization error. According to the principle of RF, many trees are randomly generated with the recursive partitioning approach, and then, the results are aggregated according to voting rules. In this study, the number of trees is set to 100 with the seed of 1. The details of RF had been described by Breiman (2001).

Performance Evaluation

Cross-validation test is a statistical analysis method for assessing a classifier. For the purpose of saving computation time, the fivefold cross-validation test was performed to assess the method proposed in this study. We used four metrics [Matthew’s correlation coefficient (MCC), sensitivity (Sn), overall accuracy (Acc), and specificity (Sp)] to measure the predictive capability of our model (Zuo et al., 2014; Zou et al., 2016; Manavalan and Lee, 2017; Manavalan et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2017a; Cao et al., 2017b; Cheng et al., 2018a; Yang et al., 2018a; Zhu et al., 2019).

where N⁺ and N⁻ are, respectively, the numbers of 6mA sites and non-6mA sites in benchmark dataset; indicates the number of the 6mA sites recognized as non-6mA sites; and indicates the number of the wrongly predicted non-6mA sites. Sn and Sp represent the ability of a model to correctly identify 6mA sites and non-6mA sites, respectively. The value of Acc indicates the overall accuracy of our model distinguishing 6mA sites from non-6mA sites. MCC indicates the performance of our model based on real and predicted values. When , meaning that none of the 6mA sites in the dataset S⁺ and none of the non-6mA sites in the dataset S⁻ was mispredicted, we have MCC = 1; when and , we have MCC = 0, meaning no better than random prediction; when and we have MCC = -1, meaning total disagreement between prediction and observation.

In addition to the analysis based on the previously discussed indicators, the ROC curves (Metz, 1989; Chen et al., 2016; Dao et al., 2018; Feng et al., 2018; Lai et al., 2019; Tan et al., 2019) were plotted, and then, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated to objectively evaluate our proposed model.

Results and Discussion

Sequence Analysis

To investigate the nucleotide distribution around the 21st site (6mA or non 6mA) in positive and negative samples, the pLogo (O’Shea et al., 2013) was plotted to analyze the statistical difference of nucleotide occurrence between two kinds of samples. The 6mA samples were dramatically different from non-6mA samples in terms of nucleotide compositions (Figure 3). The nucleotide composition bias regions existed in the ranges from -8 to +10 sites and from +15 to +18 downstream of the 6mA site. Unlike the distribution in the non-6mA samples, a consensus motif of AAAA was observed in the upstream of the 6mA site. These results suggested that it was feasible to construct a machine learning model for identifying 6mA sites with extracted sequence features.

Figure 3

Performance Evaluation on Different Features

The prediction performances of three features [K-tuple nucleotide frequency component (KNFC), mono-nucleotide binary encoding (MNBE), and natural vector (NV)] and their combinations were firstly explored with RF. Accordingly, we built four computational models and evaluated them through the fivefold cross-validation test. The prediction results are provided in Figure 4 and Table 2. It was found that MNBE could produce the best prediction performance among all features, indicating that it was the best descriptor for 6mA samples.

Figure 4

KNFC is a commonly used feature extractor technique and has been successfully applied in DNA regulatory element prediction. However, the results in Table 2 showed that the accuracy of KNFC was only 68.3%, which was far from satisfactory. For the 41-nt long 6mA samples, KNFC is a high-dimension vector (16 + 64 + 256), which is so large that many elements in feature vector are zero. Although high-dimension features contain more information, more noise and redundant information are also included, thus decreasing the discrimination capability. Therefore, KNFC is not suitable for 6mA identification. In fact, the NV is the worst descriptor among all features in this study, since it can only obtain the overall accuracy of 54.3%, which almost equals the accuracy of random guess. The reason for the poor performance of NV in 6mA prediction is that NV contains too few features to capture enough sequence information of 6mA and non-6mA samples.

For the combinations of different features, if MNBE was included, the prediction performances are always good. However, they are still not higher than those obtained with MNBE alone. Thus, subsequent studies were based on MNBE.

Performance Evaluation of Different Algorithms

It is natural to ask whether other classification is better than RF in 6mA identification. Thus, we investigated the discriminant capabilities of three algorithms, namely, Naïve Bayes, Bayes Net, and Logistic Regression, with the benchmark dataset through fivefold cross-validation. All algorithms were implemented in WEKA (Frank et al., 2004). The ROC curves were plotted (Figure 5). It is obvious that RF is the best one for 6mA prediction among four algorithms. Thus, the final model was built with RF.

Figure 5

Performance Evaluation Based on Different Data Ratios

In order to further assess the proposed method, the benchmark dataset was randomly divided into two parts according to five ratios (5:5, 6:4, 7:3, 8:2, and 9:1): training dataset and testing dataset. The former part was used to train the model, whereas the other part was used to test corresponding model. In this way, the training dataset and testing dataset are independent of each other. The predictive results are listed in Table 3. For each ratio between training and testing datasets, the model could always produce the AUC of >0.90, suggesting that our method was robust and reliable.

Performance Evaluation With an Independent Dataset

We designed the third experiment to investigate the performance of our proposed predictor. In the experiment, an independent test set was collected from NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/) with the accession number GSE103145 (Zhou et al., 2018). All the sequences were 41 nt long with the 6mA site at the center. After removing redundant information with CD-HIT program according to the cutoff of 60%, a total of 880 positive samples were obtained (Chen et al., 2019). The negative samples were also obtained from the rice genome. In the report by Zhou et al., 6mA most frequently occurs at GAGG motifs and seldom occurs in coding sequences (CDSs). Thus, negative samples were extracted from CDSs with GAGG motifs in the rice genome. In total, 880 negative samples with the sequence identity less than 60% were obtained. All negative samples were also 41 nt long with non-methylated adenosine at the center. The data were utilized as the benchmark dataset in i6mA-Pred (Chen et al., 2019). The details for the benchmark dataset are available at http://lin-group.cn/server/iDNA6mA-Rice.

We utilized these data to examine our proposed model (Table 4). In total, 95.8% 6mA sites and 93.3% non-6mA sites were correctly identified, suggesting that the method was a powerful tool for identifying 6mA sites in rice genome.

Comparison With Published Methods

Till now, i6mA-Pred (Chen et al., 2019) is the only computational-based predictor for 6mA site prediction in the rice genome. To provide an objective and strict comparison, we investigated the performance of our method with the same data through jackknife cross-validation. The method could produce the auROC of 0.910 (Table 5), which was higher than that of i6mA-Pred. This comparison demonstrated that our method was powerful.

Subsequently, iDNA6mA-PseKNC (Feng et al., 2019) is a tool to identify 6mA sites in Mus. musculus genome, and it can identify 6mA sites in many other species with high success rates. Thus, it is necessary to compare our proposed method with it. We investigated the performance of our predictor and iDNA6mA-PseKNC based on the independent dataset used in this work. All compared results were recorded in Table 4. It is obvious that the model proposed in this paper is superior to iDNA6mA-PseKNC for identifying 6mA sites.

Web Server

Databases and web servers (Wang et al., 2014; Liang et al., 2017; Yi et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Cui et al., 2018; Dao et al., 2018; Cheng et al., 2018b; He et al., 2018b; Hu et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2019a; Cheng et al., 2019b) can provide scholars with more convenient services. Thus, the basis of the novel method, we built a web server named iRNA6mA-Rice to identify 6mA sites in the rice genome. The web server can be freely accessible at http://lin-group.cn/server/iDNA6mA-Rice.

Users can open the homepage shown in Figure 6 to see a short introduction about iDNA6mA-Rice. One may firstly click the “Web-server” button, then type or copy/paste DNA sequences in the input box, or upload the FASTA format file. Note that the length of each sequence should be greater than 41 nt. Subsequently, after clicking the “submit” button, the predicted results will appear on a new page. As described previously, the tool is simple and can provide a convenient way for users to identify putative 6mA sites in DNA of their interest. Moreover, in order to facilitate the processing of large-scale data, the stand-alone package can be downloaded at http://lin-group.cn/server/iDNA6mA-Rice/download.html.

Figure 6

Conclusions

This paper developed a computational method for the identification of 6mA sites in the rice genome. We designed several kinds of experiments to examine the performance of the proposed method, for example, the performance evaluation on different features, performance evaluation on different algorithms, performance evaluation based on different data ratios, performance evaluation with an independent dataset, and comparison with published methods. All results demonstrated that our proposed method could accurately recognize 6mA sites in the rice genome. For the convenience of most wet-experimental scholars, we established a free web server to predict 6mA sites. We anticipate that the web server can promote the efficient discovery of novel potential 6mA sites in the rice genome and facilitate the exploration of their functional mechanisms in gene regulation.

Funding

This work has been supported by the National Nature Scientific Foundation of China (grant nos. 61772119 and 31771471) and the Science Strength Promotion Programme of UESTC.

References

• 1

  BergmanY.CedarH. (2013). DNA methylation dynamics in health and disease. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.20, 274–281. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.2518

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 2

  BirdA. (1992). The essentials of DNA methylation. Cell70, 5–8. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90526-I

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 3

  BreimanL. (2001). Random forests. Mach. Learn.45, 5–32. doi: 10.1023/A:1010933404324

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 4

  CaoR.FreitasC.ChanL.SunM.JiangH.ChenZ. (2017a). ProLanGO: protein function prediction using neural machine translation based on a recurrent neural network. Molecules22. doi: 10.3390/molecules22101732

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 5

  CaoR. Z.AdhikariB.BhattacharyaD.SunM.HouJ.ChengJ. L. (2017b). QAcon: single model quality assessment using protein structural and contact information with machine learning techniques. Bioinformatics33. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw694

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 6

  ChenW.LvH.NieF.LinH. (2019). i6mA-Pred: Identifying DNA N6-methyladenine sites in the rice genome. Bioinformatics. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btz015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 7

  ChenW.YangH.FengP.DingH.LinH. (2017). iDNA4mC: identifying DNA N4-methylcytosine sites based on nucleotide chemical properties. Bioinformatics33, 3518–3523. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx479

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 8

  ChenX. X.TangH.LiW. C.WuH.ChenW.DingH.et al. (2016). Identification of bacterial cell wall lyases via pseudo amino acid composition. Biomed. Res. Int.2016, 1654623. doi: 10.1155/2016/1654623

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 9

  ChengJ. H.YangH.LiuM. L.SuW.FengP. M.DingH.et al. (2018a). Prediction of bacteriophage proteins located in the host cell using hybrid features. Chemometr. Intell. Lab. Syst.180, 64–69. doi: 10.1016/j.chemolab.2018.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 10

  ChengL.HuY.SunJ.ZhouM.JiangQ. (2018b). DincRNA: a comprehensive web-based bioinformatics toolkit for exploring disease associations and ncRNA function. Bioinformatics34, 1953–1956. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 11

  ChengL.SunJ.XuW. Y.DongL. X.HuY.ZhouM. (2016). OAHG: an integrated resource for annotating human genes with multi-level ontologies. Sci. Rep.6, 1–9. doi: 10.1038/srep34820

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 12

  ChengL.YangH.ZhaoH.PeiX.ShiH.SunJ.et al. (2019a). MetSigDis: a manually curated resource for the metabolic signatures of diseases. Brief. Bioinform.20, 203–209. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbx103

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 13

  ChengL.WangP.TianR.WangS.GuoQ.LuoM.et al. (2019b). LncRNA2Target v2.0: a comprehensive database for target genes of lncRNAs in human and mouse. Nucleic Acids Res.47, D140–D144. doi: 10.1093/nar/gky1051

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 14

  ChengX. (1995). Structure and function of DNA methyltransferases. Annu. Rev. Biophys. Biomol. Struct.24, 293–318. doi: 10.1146/annurev.bb.24.060195.001453

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 15

  CuiT.ZhangL.HuangY.YiY.TanP.ZhaoY.et al. (2018). MNDR v2.0: an updated resource of ncRNA-disease associations in mammals. Nucleic Acids Res.46, D371–D374. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx1025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 16

  DaoF. Y.LvH.WangF.FengC. Q.DingH.ChenW.et al. (2018). Identify origin of replication in Saccharomyces cerevisiae using two-step feature selection technique. Bioinformatics35, 2075–2083. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty943

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 17

  DengM.YuC.LiangQ.HeR. L.YauS. S. (2011). A novel method of characterizing genetic sequences: genome space with biological distance and applications. PLoS One6, e17293. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017293

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 18

  FangG.MuneraD.FriedmanD. I.MandlikA.ChaoM. C.BanerjeeO.et al. (2012). Genome-wide mapping of methylated adenine residues in pathogenic Escherichia coli using single-molecule real-time sequencing. Nat. Biotechnol.30, 1232–1239. doi: 10.1038/nbt.2432

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 19

  FengC. Q.ZhangZ. Y.ZhuX. J.LinY.ChenW.TangH.et al. (2018). iTerm-PseKNC: a sequence-based tool for predicting bacterial transcriptional terminators. Bioinformatics35, 1469–1477. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty827

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 20

  FengP.YangH.DingH.LinH.ChenW.ChouK. C. (2019). iDNA6mA-PseKNC: Identifying DNA N(6)-methyladenosine sites by incorporating nucleotide physicochemical properties into PseKNC. Genomics111, 96–102. doi: 10.1016/j.ygeno.2018.01.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 21

  FrankE.HallM.TriggL.HolmesG.WittenI. H. (2004). Data mining in bioinformatics using Weka. Bioinformatics20, 2479–2481. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bth261

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 22

  FuY.LuoG. Z.ChenK.DengX.YuM.HanD.et al. (2015). N6-methyldeoxyadenosine marks active transcription start sites in Chlamydomonas. Cell161, 879–892. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.010

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 23

  GreerE. L.BlancoM. A.GuL.SendincE.LiuJ.Aristizabal-CorralesD.et al. (2015). DNA Methylation on N6-adenine in C. elegans. Cell161, 868–878. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 24

  GuoS. H.DengE. Z.XuL. Q.DingH.LinH.ChenW.et al. (2014). iNuc-PseKNC: a sequence-based predictor for predicting nucleosome positioning in genomes with pseudo k-tuple nucleotide composition. Bioinformatics30, 1522–1529. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btu083

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 25

  HeW.JiaC.ZouQ. (2018a). 4mCPred: machine learning methods for DNA N4-methylcytosine sites prediction. Bioinformatics35, 593–601. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty668

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 26

  HeW.JiaC.DuanY.ZouQ. (2018b). 70ProPred: a predictor for discovering sigma70 promoters based on combining multiple features. BMC Syst. Biol.12, 44. doi: 10.1186/s12918-018-0570-1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 27

  HeynH.EstellerM. (2015). An adenine code for DNA: a second life for N6-Methyladenine. Cell161, 710–713. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.021

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 28

  HuB.ZhengL.LongC.SongM.LiT.YangL.et al. (2019). EmExplorer: a database for exploring time activation of gene expression in mammalian embryos. Open Biol.9, 190054. doi: 10.1098/rsob.190054

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 29

  KoziolM. J.BradshawC. R.AllenG. E.CostaA. S. H.FrezzaC.GurdonJ. B. (2016). Identification of methylated deoxyadenosines in vertebrates reveals diversity in DNA modifications. Nat. Struct. Mol. Biol.23, 24–30. doi: 10.1038/nsmb.3145

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 30

  LaiH. Y.ZhangZ. Y.SuZ. D.SuW.DingH.ChenW.et al. (2019). iProEP: a computational predictor for predicting promoter. Mol. Ther. Nucleic Acids17, 337–346. doi: 10.1016/j.omtn.2019.05.028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 31

  LiW.GodzikA. (2006). Cd-hit: a fast program for clustering and comparing large sets of protein or nucleotide sequences. Bioinformatics22, 1658–1659. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl158

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 32

  LiangZ. Y.LaiH. Y.YangH.ZhangC. J.YangH.WeiH. H.et al. (2017). Pro54DB: a database for experimentally verified sigma-54 promoters. Bioinformatics33, 467–469. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw630

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 33

  LinH.LiQ. Z. (2011). Eukaryotic and prokaryotic promoter prediction using hybrid approach. Theory Biosci.130, 91–100. doi: 10.1007/s12064-010-0114-8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 34

  LinH.DengE. Z.DingH.ChenW.ChouK. C. (2014). iPro54-PseKNC: a sequence-based predictor for identifying sigma-54 promoters in prokaryote with pseudo k-tuple nucleotide composition. Nucleic Acids Res.42, 12961–12972. doi: 10.1093/nar/gku1019

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 35

  LiuD.LiG.ZuoY. (2018). Function determinants of TET proteins: the arrangements of sequence motifs with specific codes. Brief. Bioinform. doi: 10.1093/bib/bby053

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 36

  LiuJ.ZhuY.LuoG. Z.WangX.YueY.WangX.et al. (2016). Abundant DNA 6mA methylation during early embryogenesis of zebrafish and pig. Nat. Commun.7, 13052. doi: 10.1038/ncomms13052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 37

  LongC. S.LiW.LiangP. F.LiuS.ZuoY. C. (2019). Transcriptome comparisons of multi-species identify differential genome activation of mammals embryogenesis. IEEE Access7, 7794–7802. doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2018.2889809

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 38

  LvH.ZhangZ. M.LiS. H.TanJ. X.ChenW.LinH. (2019). Evaluation of different computational methods on 5-methylcytosine sites identification. Brief. Bioinform. doi: 10.1093/bib/bbz048

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 39

  ManavalanB.LeeJ. (2017). SVMQA: support-vector-machine-based protein single-model quality assessment. Bioinformatics33, 2496–2503. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx222

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 40

  ManavalanB.ShinT. H.LeeG. (2018a). PVP-SVM: sequence-based prediction of phage virion proteins using a support vector machine. Front. Microbiol.9, 476. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00476

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 41

  ManavalanB.ShinT. H.LeeG. (2018b). DHSpred: support-vector-machine-based human DNase I hypersensitive sites prediction using the optimal features selected by random forest. Oncotarget9, 1944–1956. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.23099

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 42

  ManavalanB.BasithS.ShinT. H.ChoiS.KimM. O.LeeG. (2017). MLACP: machine-learning-based prediction of anticancer peptides. Oncotarget8, 77121–77136. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.20365

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 43

  MetzC. E. (1989). Some practical issues of experimental design and data analysis in radiological ROC studies. Invest. Radiol.24, 234–245. doi: 10.1097/00004424-198903000-00012

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 44

  MondoS. J.DannebaumR. O.KuoR. C.LouieK. B.BewickA. J.LaButtiK.et al. (2017). Widespread adenine N6-methylation of active genes in fungi. Nat. Genet.49, 964–968. doi: 10.1038/ng.3859

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 45

  O’SheaJ. P.ChouM. F.QuaderS. A.RyanJ. K.ChurchG. M.SchwartzD. (2013). pLogo: a probabilistic approach to visualizing sequence motifs. Nat. Methods10, 1211–1212. doi: 10.1038/nmeth.2646

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 46

  RatelD.RavanatJ. L.BergerF.WionD. (2006). N6-methyladenine: the other methylated base of DNA. Bioessays28, 309–315. doi: 10.1002/bies.20342

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 47

  SmithZ. D.MeissnerA. (2013). DNA methylation: roles in mammalian development. Nat. Rev. Genet.14, 204–220. doi: 10.1038/nrg3354

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 48

  SongJ.ZhaiJ.BianE.SongY.YuJ.MaC. (2018a). Transcriptome-wide annotation of m5c RNA modifications using machine learning. Front. Plant Sci.9, 519. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00519

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 49

  SongJ.TanH.PerryA. J.AkutsuT.WebbG. I.WhisstockJ. C.et al. (2012). PROSPER: an integrated feature-based tool for predicting protease substrate cleavage sites. PLoS One7, e50300. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0050300

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 50

  SongJ.WangY.LiF.AkutsuT.RawlingsN. D.WebbG. I.et al. (2018b). iProt-Sub: a comprehensive package for accurately mapping and predicting protease-specific substrates and cleavage sites. Brief. Bioinform.20, 638–658. doi: 10.1093/bib/bby028

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 51

  SongJ.LiF.LeierA.Marquez-LagoT. T.AkutsuT.HaffariG.et al. (2018c). PROSPERous: high-throughput prediction of substrate cleavage sites for 90 proteases with improved accuracy. Bioinformatics34, 684–687. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx670

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 52

  StephensonN.ShaneE.ChaseJ.RowlandJ.RiesD.JusticeN.et al. (2018). Survey of machine learning techniques in drug discovery. Curr. Drug Metab.20, 185–193. doi: 10.2174/1389200219666180820112457

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 53

  SuZ. D.HuangY.ZhangZ. Y.ZhaoY. W.WangD.ChenW.et al. (2018). iLoc-lncRNA: predict the subcellular location of lncRNAs by incorporating octamer composition into general PseKNC. Bioinformatics34, 4196–4204. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty508

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 54

  TanJ. X.LiS. H.ZhangZ. M.ChenC. X.ChenW.TangH.et al. (2019). Identification of hormone binding proteins based on machine learning methods. Math. Biosci. Eng.16, 2466–2480. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019123

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 55

  TangH.ZhaoY. W.ZouP.ZhangC. M.ChenR.HuangP.et al. (2018a). HBPred: a tool to identify growth hormone-binding proteins. Int. J. Biol. Sci.14, 957–964. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.24174

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 56

  TangW.WanS.YangZ.TeschendorffA. E.ZouQ. (2018b). Tumor origin detection with tissue-specific miRNA and DNA methylation markers. Bioinformatics34, 398–406. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btx622

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 57

  TianK.ZhaoX.YauS. S. (2018). Convex hull analysis of evolutionary and phylogenetic relationships between biological groups. J. Theor. Biol.456, 34–40. doi: 10.1016/j.jtbi.2018.07.035

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 58

  von MeyennF.IurlaroM.HabibiE.LiuN. Q.Salehzadeh-YazdiA.SantosF.et al. (2016). Impairment of DNA methylation maintenance is the main cause of global demethylation in naive embryonic stem cells. Mol. Cell62, 848–861. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2016.04.025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 59

  WangM. J.ZhaoX. M.TanH.AkutsuT.WhisstockJ. C.SongJ. N. (2014). Cascleave 2.0, a new approach for predicting caspase and granzyme cleavage targets. Bioinformatics30, 71–80. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btt603

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 60

  WangY.ChenX.ShengY.LiuY.GaoS. (2017). N6-adenine DNA methylation is associated with the linker DNA of H2A.Z-containing well-positioned nucleosomes in Pol II-transcribed genes in Tetrahymena. Nucleic Acids Res.45, 11594–11606. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkx883

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 61

  WeiL.ZhouC.ChenH.SongJ.SuR. (2018a). ACPred-FL: a sequence-based predictor based on effective feature representation to improve the prediction of anti-cancer peptides. Bioinformatics34, 4007–4016. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty451

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 62

  WeiL.LuanS.NagaiL. A. E.SuR.ZouQ. (2018b). Exploring sequence-based features for the improved prediction of DNA N4-methylcytosine sites in multiple species. Bioinformatics35, 1326–1333. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/bty824

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 63

  WionD.CasadesusJ. (2006). N6-methyl-adenine: an epigenetic signal for DNA-protein interactions. Nat. Rev. Microbiol.4, 183–192. doi: 10.1038/nrmicro1350

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 64

  WuT. P.WangT.SeetinM. G.LaiY.ZhuS.LinK.et al. (2016). DNA methylation on N(6)-adenine in mammalian embryonic stem cells. Nature532, 329–333. doi: 10.1038/nature17640

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 65

  XiaoC. L.ZhuS.HeM.ChenZhangQ.ChenY.YuG.et al. (2018). N(6)-Methyladenine DNA modification in the human genome. Mol. Cell71, 306–318 e7. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2018.06.015

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 66

  YangH.LvH.DingH.ChenW.LinH. (2018a). iRNA-2OM: a sequence-based predictor for identifying 2’-O-methylation sites in homo sapiens. J. Comput. Biol.25, 1266–1277. doi: 10.1089/cmb.2018.0004

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 67

  YangH.QiuW. R.LiuG. Q.GuoF. B.ChenW.ChouK. C.et al. (2018b). iRSpot-Pse6NC: identifying recombination spots in Saccharomyces cerevisiae by incorporating hexamer composition into general PseKNC. Int. J. Biol. Sci.14, 883–891. doi: 10.7150/ijbs.24616

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 68

  YaoB.ChengY.WangZ.LiY.ChenL.HuangL.et al. (2017). DNA N6-methyladenine is dynamically regulated in the mouse brain following environmental stress. Nat. Commun.8, 1122. doi: 10.1038/s41467-017-01195-y

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 69

  YiY.ZhaoY.LiC.ZhangL.HuangH.LiY.et al. (2017). RAID v2.0: an updated resource of RNA-associated interactions across organisms. Nucleic Acids Res.45, D115–D118. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw1052

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 70

  ZhangC. J.TangH.LiW. C.LinH.ChenW.ChouK. C. (2016). iOri-Human: identify human origin of replication by incorporating dinucleotide physicochemical properties into pseudo nucleotide composition. Oncotarget7, 69783–69793. doi: 10.18632/oncotarget.11975

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 71

  ZhangG.HuangH.LiuD.ChengY.LiuX.ZhangW.et al. (2015). N6-methyladenine DNA modification in Drosophila. Cell161, 893–906. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.04.018

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 72

  ZhangT.TanP.WangL.JinN.LiY.ZhangL.et al. (2017). RNALocate: a resource for RNA subcellular localizations. Nucleic Acids Res.45, D135–D138. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkw728

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 73

  ZhaoX.ZouQ.LiuB.LiuX. (2014). Exploratory predicting protein folding model with random forest and hybrid features. Curr. Proteomics11, 289–299. doi: 10.2174/157016461104150121115154

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 74

  ZhouC.WangC.LiuH.ZhouQ.LiuQ.GuoY.et al. (2018). Identification and analysis of adenine N(6)-methylation sites in the rice genome. Nat. Plants4, 554–563. doi: 10.1038/s41477-018-0214-x

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 75

  ZhuX. J.FengC. Q.LaiH. Y.ChenW.LinH. (2019). Predicting protein structural classes for low-similarity sequences by evaluating different features. Knowl.-Based Syst.163, 787–793. doi: 10.1016/j.knosys.2018.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 76

  ZouQ.XingP.WeiL.LiuB. (2018a). Gene2vec: gene subsequence embedding for prediction of mammalian N6-methyladenosine sites from mRNA. RNA25, 205–218. doi: 10.1261/rna.069112.118

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 77

  ZouQ.WanS.JuY.TangJ.ZengX. (2016). Pretata: predicting TATA binding proteins with novel features and dimensionality reduction strategy. BMC Syst. Biol.10, 114. doi: 10.1186/s12918-016-0353-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 78

  ZouQ.LinG.JiangX.LiuX.ZengX. (2018b). Sequence clustering in bioinformatics: an empirical study. Brief. Bioinform. doi: 10.1093/bib/bby090

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 79

  ZuoY.LiY.ChenY.LiG.YanZ.YangL. (2017). PseKRAAC: a flexible web server for generating pseudo K-tuple reduced amino acids composition. Bioinformatics33, 122–124. doi: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btw564

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article

• 80

  ZuoY. C.PengY.LiuL.ChenW.YangL.FanG. L. (2014). Predicting peroxidase subcellular location by hybridizing different descriptors of Chou’ pseudo amino acid patterns. Anal. Biochem.458, 14–19. doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2014.04.032

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar
  • View reference in article