Benchmarking available bacterial promoter prediction tools: potentialities and limitations

AbstractBackgroundThe promoter region is a key element required for the production of RNA in bacteria. While new high-throughput technology allows massive mapping of promoter elements, we still mainly relay on bioinformatic tools to predict such elements in bacterial genomes. Additionally, despite many different prediction tools have become popular to identify bacterial promoters, there is no systematic comparison of such tools.ResultsHere, we performed a systematic comparison between several widely used promoter prediction tools (BPROM, bTSSfinder, BacPP, CNNProm, IBBP, Virtual Footprint, IPro70-FMWin, 70ProPred, iPromoter-2L and MULTiPly) using well-defined sequence data sets and standardized metrics to determine how well those tools performed related to each other. For this, we used datasets of experimentally validated promoters fromEscherichia coliand a control dataset composed by randomly generated sequences with similar nucleotide distributions. We compared the performance of the tools using metrics such as specificity, sensibility, accuracy and Matthews Correlation Coefficient (MCC). We show that the widely used BPROM presented the worse performance among compared tools, while four tools (CNNProm, IPro70-FMWin, 70ProPreda and iPromoter-2L) offered high predictive power. From these, iPro70-FMWin exhibited the best results for most of the metrics used.ConclusionsTherefore, we exploit here some potentials and limitations of available tools and hope future works can be built upon our effort to systematically characterize such quite useful class of bioinformatics tools.