| Literature DB >> 27440159 |
Daniela Hombach1,2, Jana Marie Schwarz1,2, Peter N Robinson3, Markus Schuelke1,2, Dominik Seelow4,5,6.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27440159 PMCID: PMC4952225 DOI: 10.1186/s12864-016-2818-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Genomics ISSN: 1471-2164 Impact factor: 3.969
Fig. 2Direct comparison of binding models generated by different methods. Depicted are AUC scores for TFs stored in both JASPAR (manually collected curated models) and HT-SELEX. AUC scores were generated using ROCR. If multiple binding models were available for one TF, we depict the average AUC value
Fig. 3Representative plots for conservation analyses. We determined the maximum phastCons (a) and phyloP (b) scores in each experimentally confirmed binding site of BCL11A (left panel) and ZBTB33 (right panel) and calculated the averages of the maximum scores