MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are small (18–24 nt) endogenous RNAs found across diverse phyla involved in posttranscriptional regulation, primarily downregulation of mRNAs. Experimentally determining miRNA–mRNA interactions can be expensive and time-consuming, making the accurate computational prediction of miRNA targets a high priority. Since miRNA–mRNA base pairing in mammals is not perfectly complementary and only a fraction of the identified motifs are real binding sites, accurately predicting miRNA targets remains challenging. The limitations and bottlenecks of existing algorithms and approaches are discussed in this chapter.
A new miRNA–mRNA interaction algorithm was implemented in Python (TargetFind) to capture three different modes of association and to maximize detection sensitivity to around 95% for mouse (mm9) and human (hg19) reference data. For human (hg19) data, the prediction accuracy with any one feature among evolutionarily conserved score, multiple targets in a UTR or changes in free energy varied within a close range from 63.5% to 66%. When the results of these features are combined with majority voting, the expected prediction accuracy increases to 69.5%. When all three features are used together, the average best prediction accuracy with tenfold cross validation from the classifiers naïve Bayes, support vector machine, artificial neural network, and decision tree were, respectively, 66.5%, 67.1%, 69%, and 68.4%. The results reveal the advantages and limitations of these approaches.
When comparing different sets of features on their strength in predicting true hg19 targets, evolutionarily conserved score slightly outperformed all other features based on thermostability, and target multiplicity. The sophisticated supervised learning algorithms did not improve the prediction accuracy significantly compared to a simple threshold based approach on conservation score or combining the results of each feature with majority agreements. The targets from randomly generated UTRs behaved similar to that of noninteracting pairs with respect to changes in free energy. Availability of additional experimental data describing noninteracting pairs will advance our understanding of the characteristics and the factors positively and negatively influencing these interactions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Springer Nature is developing a new tool to find and evaluate Protocols. Learn more
Our sincere thanks to Hui Liu for sharing the noninteracting data set that they have collected on human genome.
Griffiths-Jones S, Saini HK, van Dongen S, Enright AJ (2008) miRBase: tools for microRNA genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 36(Database issue):D154–D158PubMedGoogle Scholar
Vergoulis T, Vlachos IS, Alexiou P, Georgakilas G, Maragkakis M, Reczko M, Gerangelos S, Koziris N, Dalamagas T, Hatzigeorgiou AG (2012) TarBase 6.0: capturing the exponential growth of miRNA targets with experimental support. Nucleic Acids Res 40(Database issue):D222–D229CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Xiao F, Zuo Z, Cai G, Kang S, Gao X, Li T (2009) miRecords: an integrated resource for microRNA-target interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 37(Database issue):D105–D110CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Hsu SD, Lin FM, Wu WY, Liang C, Huang WC, Chan WL, Tsai WT, Chen GZ, Lee CJ, Chiu CM et al (2011) miRTarBase: a database curates experimentally validated microRNA-target interactions. Nucleic Acids Res 39(Database issue):D163–D169CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Jiang Q, Wang Y, Hao Y, Juan L, Teng M, Zhang X, Li M, Wang G, Liu Y (2009) miR2Disease: a manually curated database for microRNA deregulation in human disease. Nucleic Acids Res 37(Database issue):D98–104CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Kertesz M, Iovino N, Unnerstall U, Gaul U, Segal E (2007) The role of site accessibility in microRNA target recognition. Nat Genet 39(10):1278–1284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Long D, Lee R, Williams P, Chan CY, Ambros V, Ding Y (2007) Potent effect of target structure on microRNA function. Nat Struct Mol Biol 14(4):287–294CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Heikkinen L, Kolehmainen M, Wong G (2011) Prediction of microRNA targets in Caenorhabditis elegans using a self-organizing map. Bioinformatics 27(9):1247–1254CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Yousef M, Jung S, Kossenkov AV, Showe LC, Showe MK (2007) Naive Bayes for microRNA target predictions—machine learning for microRNA targets. Bioinformatics 23(22):2987–2992CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Mendoza MR, da Fonseca GC, Loss-Morais G, Alves R, Margis R, Bazzan AL (2013) RFMirTarget: predicting human MicroRNA target genes with a random Forest classifier. PLoS One 8(7):e70153CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Krek A, Grun D, Poy MN, Wolf R, Rosenberg L, Epstein EJ, MacMenamin P, da Piedade I, Gunsalus KC, Stoffel M et al (2005) Combinatorial microRNA target predictions. Nat Genet 37(5):495–500CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Wang X, El Naqa IM (2008) Prediction of both conserved and nonconserved microRNA targets in animals. Bioinformatics 24(3):325–332CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
Incarnato D, Neri F, Diamanti D, Oliviero S (2013) MREdictor: a two-step dynamic interaction model that accounts for mRNA accessibility and Pumilio binding accurately predicts microRNA targets. Nucleic Acids Res 41(18):8421–8433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Lekprasert P, Mayhew M, Ohler U (2011) Assessing the utility of thermodynamic features for microRNA target prediction under relaxed seed and no conservation requirements. PLoS One 6(6):e20622CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
Hofacker IL (2004) RNA secondary structure analysis using the Vienna RNA package. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics Chapter 12:Unit 12Google Scholar
van Iterson M, Bervoets S, de Meijer EJ, Buermans HP, Hoen PA, Menezes RX, Boer JM (2013) Integrated analysis of microRNA and mRNA expression: adding biological significance to microRNA target predictions. Nucleic Acids Res 41(15):e146CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar