Review of Different Sequence Motif Finding Algorithms

PDF - Export to EndNote - PubMed Central XML format - PubMed Central XML format

  • - Department of Biomedical Engineering, Helwan University, Cairo, Egypt

  • - Department of Biomedical Engineering, Misr University for Science and Technology (MUST), Cairo, Egypt


The DNA motif discovery is a primary step in many systems for studying gene function.  Motif discovery plays a vital role in identification of Transcription Factor Binding Sites (TFBSs) that help in learning the mechanisms for regulation of gene expression. Over the past decades, different algorithms were used to design fast and accurate motif discovery tools. These algorithms are generally classified into consensus or probabilistic approaches that many of them are time-consuming and easily trapped in a local optimum. Nature-inspired algorithms and many of combinatorial algorithms are recently proposed to overcome these problems. This paper presents a general classification of motif discovery algorithms with new sub-categories that facilitate building a successful motif discovery algorithm. It also presents a summary of comparison between them.



Introduction :

Motif discovery is one of the sequence analysis problems under the application layer and it is one of the significant difficulties in bioinformatics applications. A DNA sequence motif is a subsequence of DNA sequence that is a short similar recurring pattern of nucleotides, and it has many biological functions 1. A DNA motif refers to a short similar repeated pattern of nucleotides that has biological meaning. Sequence motifs also called regulatory elements exist in Regulatory Region (RR) in eukaryotic gene 2.
Sequence motifs have constant size and are often repeated and conserved, but at the same time, they are tiny (about 6-12 bp) and the intergenic regions are very long and highly variable that make motif discovery a problematic task. These patterns play an essential role in recognizing Transcription Factor Binding Sites (TFBSs) that help in learning the mechanisms for regulation of gene expression 3. Different types of motifs are planted motifs, structured motifs, sequence motifs, gapped motifs and network motifs 4. Motif discovery problem in a simple form can be formulated as in figure 1 where the input is DNA sequence with unknown motifs at different unknown positions with various lengths and the output is the DNA motifs. The motif discovery technique consists of three main stages 5
A. Pre-processing: It is preparing the DNA sequences for accurate motif discovery by assembling and clean steps. In assembling step, it is advised to select as many target se-quences as possible that may contain motifs, try to keep sequences as short as possible, and remove sequences that are unlikely to contain any motifs. Assembling step is done by clustering the input sequences based on some information and then extracting the desired sequences in an appropriate sequence database. Then, cleaning the input sequences to mask or remove confounding sequences is necessary.
B. Discovering: The middle stage is the motif discovery approach that begins by representing the sequences. There are two ways to represent the motifs: consensus string and Position-specific Weight Matrices (PWM). Consensus string has the same length of DNA sequence motif; it allows to degenerate symbols in a string using IUPAC code while PWM is a matrix of 4xm where m is the motif length. Every position in the matrix represents the probability of each nucleotide at each index position of the motif. After motif representation, the suitable objective function is determined and finally appropriate search algorithm is applied. There are hundreds of algorithms for motif extraction that most of them are listed in table 1.
C. Post-processing: Post-processing evaluates the resultant motifs. This paper presents a more general classification of the sequence motifs extraction methods. Most of them are mentioned with a comparison among them.


Literature Review :

There are two principal types of motif discovery algorithms; i.e. enumeration approach and probabilistic technique. Enumeration approach searches for consensus sequences; motifs are predicted based on the enumeration of words and computing word similarities so this approach is sometimes called the word enumeration approach to solve Panted (l, d) Motif Problem (PMP) with motif length (l) and a maximum number of mismatches (d). The algorithms based on the word enumeration approach exhaustively search the whole search space to determine which ones appear with possible substitutions and therefore it typically locates the global optimum. However, this also means that they are exponential-time algorithms that require a long time to detect the larger l and inefficient for handling dozens of sequences, so they are only suitable for short motifs 6. Moreover, these algorithms require many parameters determined by the users such as motif length, the number of mismatches allowed, and a minimum number of sequences that the motif has to appear in 7.
The word enumeration approach can be accelerated by using specialized data structures such as suffix trees or parallel processing 8. Popular algorithms based on this approach are DREME 9, CisFinder 10, Weeder 7, FMotif 11, and MCES 12
A second group is a probabilistic approach. It constructs a probabilistic model called position-Specific Weight Matrix (PSWM) or motif matrix that specifies a distribution of bases for each position in TFBS to distinguish motifs vs. non-motifs and it requires few search parameters 13. The most popular methods based on probabilistic approach are MEME 14, STEME 15, EXTREME 16, AlignACE 17, and BioProspector 18.
Recently, new algorithms inspired from nature are presented that solve complex and dynamic problems with appropriate time and optimal cost. These algorithms simulate the behavior of insects or other animals for problem-solving. Evolutionary algorithms can overcome the disadvantages of local search and synthesize local search and global search 19. Examples of evolutionary algorithms are: Genetic Algorithm (GA) 20, Genetic Programming (Special type of GA) 21, Differential Evolution (DE) 22, Evolution Strategy 23, Multimodal Optimization 24, Cuckoo-Search (CS) 25, Levy flight 26, Bacterial Colony Optimization 27, and Intelligent Water Drops algorithm 28.
Swarm intelligence is a special class of evolutionary algorithm including Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) 111, Artificial Bee Colony (ABC) algorithm 127, and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO) algorithm 128
The beauty of nature-inspired algorithms is that they provide flexibility in evaluating the solutions by using fitness functions that score the solutions. These functions vary from problem to another and evaluate using different information types as biological information, functional information, etc. Moreover, these algorithms provide flexibility in motif representation 129.
Finally, the last category is a combinatorial algorithm that mixes multiple algorithms. The classification of motif discovery algorithms is shown in figure 2. This paper presents a classification of motif discovery algorithms and gives an overview of the most common algorithms with many examples; also, the main features while designing a new algorithm and future work are proposed. 
A. Enumerative approach: The enumerative approach can be classified into many classes.
1. Simple word enumeration:
The first class is based on simple word enumeration. Some existing algorithms in this class are YMF 134 and DREME 9,29. Sinha et al 29 developed YMF (Yeast Motif Finder) algorithm that detects short motifs with a small number of degenerate positions in yeast genomes using consensus representation. YMF enumerates all motifs in the search space approach and calculates the z-score to produce those motifs with greatest z-scores. Bailey et al 9 proposed DREME (Discriminative Regular Expression Motif Elicitation) algorithm that also calculates the significance of motifs using Fisher’s Exact test. The algorithm starts with generating a set of short k-mers, followed by applying Fisher’s Exact test on two sets of DNA sequences (Input set and background set) using a significance threshold to calculate the significance of each word (No wildcards) of length three to eight that occurs in the positive sequences and select the 100 most significant words for being used in the inner loop where they passed as "seed" REs to perform a beam search that determines the most significant generalizations of them (One wildcard). To find multiple, non-redundant motifs in a set of sequences, outer loop determines the most significant motif using the heuristic search of RE motifs and the best motif found replaces its occurrences by a special letter; then the search process is repeated again many times until E-value of the new motif is less than the determined significance threshold. 
2. Clustering-based method
Instead of using two loops for finding multiple motifs, the second class was proposed. Sharov et al 10 proposed word clustering method called CisFinder to detect short motif with high processing speed in large sequences (up to 50 Mb). Firstly, one should define nucleotide substitution matrix for each n-mer word, then calculate Position Frequency Matrices (PFMs) for n-mer word counts with and without gaps in both test and control sets. To generate non-redundant motifs, PFMs are extended over flanking and gap regions followed by means of clustering. Thomas et al 31 extended the CisFinder technique to deal with whole ChIP-seq peak data sets.
3. Tree-based method
The third class is a tree -based search to accelerate the word enumeration technique. Pavesi et al 7 presented Weeder algorithm based on count matching patterns with specific and most extreme mismatches. At first, the motifs are represented using consensus sequence and based on the difference between the k-mers of the input sequences and the consensus under a limited number of substitutions, k-mers are assembled and each group is evaluated with a specific measure of significance. The constructed suffix tree was proposed in FMotif 11 algorithm for finding long (l, d) motifs in large DNA sequences under the ZOMOPS (Zero, one or multiple occurrence(s) of the motif instance(s) per sequence) constraints. This proposed tree is faster than standard suffix tree as it avoids a large number of repeated scans of sequences on the suffix tree. Afterward, Qiang et al 12 proposed MCES  algorithm for a PMP that used both suffix tree and parallel processing to deal with large datasets. MCES algorithm starts with mining step that constructs the Suffix Array (SA) and the Longest Common Prefix array (LCP) for the input datasets. At that point, combining step clusters substrings of various lengths to get predicted motifs.
4. Graph theoretic-based method
The graph-theoretic method represents a motif instance, as a clique; the graph G is built by representing each l-mer in the input sequences by vertex and the edge between a pair of vertices representing a pair of l-mer in different input sequences having the Hamming distance between the substrings which is less than or equal to 2d. Then, cliques of size N are searched for in this graph. Popular graph-theoretic methods are WINNOWER 39, Pruner 40, and cWINNOWER 41.
5. Hashing-based method
Buhler et al 64 developed random projection algorithm for a PMP that projects every l-mer in the input data into a smaller space by hashing. Initially, a projection of l-dimensional space onto a k-dimensional subspace for all subsequences in the input set is developed, and random projection is constructed by choosing random k positions from l position. Using this projection, each l-mer is hashed to its corresponding bucket. After m projections, each bucket contains l-mer more than a threshold and this is called qualified bucket. Random hashing is repeated n times to ensure the qualified bucket at least more than once. Finally, profile for each of them should be computed to get the most probable l-mer in the sequence that was represented as consensus sequences. In previous studies, random projection was developed using uniform projection and low-dispersion projection algorithms, respectively 65,66.
6. Fixed candidates and modified candidate-based methods
The sixth class is fixed candidates that select candidate motifs from input sequences and use them for motif scanning while the seventh class is modified candidate that selects one candidate from the input sequence and modifies it letter by letter. 
Finally, there is a proposed algorithm called RefSelect 69 to select reference sequences for PMP. The reference sequences are the sequences that don’t contain motif instances, so, this method tries to select the reference sequences that generate a small number of candidate motifs as possible. The algorithm consists of two steps; firstly, for every two sequences in input dataset D, the number of candidate motifs generated from them should be computed using the Hamming distance between every two l-mers. Then, the set with candidate motifs, as small as possible, is selected as a reference set.
B. Probabilistic approach
Deterministic approach:
Expectation-Maximization (EM) 130 is the famous example of deterministic approach. EM for motif finding was first introduced by Lawrence et al 132 and it consists of two main steps, the first called "Expectation step" that estimates the values of some set of unknowns based on a set of parameters. The second step is "Maximization step" that uses those estimated values to refine the parameters over several iterations. EM is used to identify conserved areas in unaligned DNA and proteins with an assumption that each sequence must contain one common site, the parameters; in this case, they are the entries in the PWM and the background nucleotide probabilities while our unknowns are the scores for each possible motif position in all of the sequences.
There are several algorithms based on EM. MEME (Multiple EM for Motif Elicitation) 14 is a popular motif recognition program that optimizes PWMs using the EM algorithm. It has several versions 132-136. The idea of MEME algorithm is to find an initial motif and then use expectation and maximization steps to improve the motif until the values in the PWM do not improve or the maximum number of iterations is reached. The MEME algorithm starts from a single site, i.e. k-mer (Random or specified) and estimates motif model (PWM). For every possible location in every input sequence, the probability, given the PWM model, should be identified to detect examples of the model; then, the motif model should be re-estimated by calculating a new PWM. EM alternates between examples of the model step and re-estimates the motif model step. A single iteration for each k-mer in target sequences should be performed and the best motif from this site needs to be selected and then only the one to converge should be iterated. The algorithm searches for new motifs after erasing the old discovered motif. It defines all three types of motif discovery sequence model: OOPS, ZOOPS, and TCMs corresponding to one occurrence per sequence, zero or one occurrence per sequence, and zero or more occurrences per sequence, respectively. Reid et al 15 presented STEME (Suffix Tree EM for Motif Elicitation) algorithm to accelerate the MEME algorithm and the first application of suffix trees to EM algorithm was considered. Quang et al 16 also tried to accelerate the MEME algorithm by developing EXTREME (Online EM algorithm for motif discovery) algorithm. EXTREME is an online web server that implements the MEME algorithm and can work on a large dataset without discarding any sequences.
2. Stochastic approach
Gibbs sampling 72 is a famous stochastic approach, similar to EM algorithm. Pseudocode of the Gibbs sampling algorithm for motif detection follows these steps 130:
• Random initializing of motif positions in the input N sequences with an assumption of the presence of one motif per sequence,
• Choosing one sequence at random,
• Computing PWM for the other N-1 sequences using staring positions of motifs and background probabilities for each base using the non-motif positions,
• Calculating probability of each possible motif location in the removed sequence using PWM and background probabilities,
• For the removed sequence, choosing a new starting position based on step 4.
Steps 2-5 should be iterated until the values in the PWM do not improve or the maximum number of iterations has been reached.
Many methods 17,18 have been developed that implement the concept of Gibbs’ sampling to extend its functionality. Hughes et al 17 proposed Align ACE (Aligns Nucleic Acid Conserved Elements) algorithm based on Gibbs’ sampling with some improvements: (1) The motif model was changed to fit the source genome because the base frequencies for non-site sequence is fixed, (2) Both strands of the input sequence are considered and no circumstance overlapping is allowed, (3) Iteratively, aligned sites were masked out to find multiple different motifs, and (4) It uses an improved near-optimum sampling method. 
BioProspector 18 algorithm is also based on Gibbs’ sampling with several improvements: (1) It uses a Markov model estimated from all promoter noncoding sequences to represent the non-motif background in order to improve the motif specificity, (2) It can find two-block motifs with variable gap, and (3) Sampling with two thresholds allows every input sequence to include zero or multiple copies of the motif.
3. Advanced approach
Different algorithms were proposed based on Bayesian approach 137. Jensen et al 13 proposed an algorithm based on Bayesian approach with Markov chain Monte Carlo. Xing et al 77 proposed LOGOS (Integrated LOcal and GlObal motif sequence model) algorithm that combines between HMDM (Hidden Markov Dirichlet-Multinomial) for local alignment model for each different motif and HMM (Hidden Markov model) for global motif distribution model for the occurrence of multiple motifs.
Recently, Siebert et al 78 developed a Bayesian Markov Model (BaMM) approach that trains higher order Markov models to build the dependency model. BaMM algorithm is more complex than PWMs wherein the PWMs cannot model correlations among nucleotides because PWMs nucleotide probabilities are independent of nucleotides at other positions. In the proposed algorithm, Bayesian approach using Markov models makes optimal use of the available information while avoids training by the decrease in number of parameters. 
Other different algorithms 79,80 were presented like clustering methods based on Bayesian approach.
4. Others
EPP (Entropy-based position projection) 6 algorithm was proposed to escape from local optima. This algorithm based on projection process depends on the relative entropy in each position of motif instead of random projection.
C. Nature-inspired algorithms
Nature-inspired algorithms are classified according to the sources of inspiration into three main categories 138. They are swarm-intelligence, non swarm-intelligence and physics/chemistry as shown in figure 2. Popular evolutionary algorithms used in motif discovery are GA and PSO and few of them are ABC, CS, and ACO.
1. GA
GA is a probabilistic optimization algorithm based on evolutionary computing. GA is inspired from biological evolution processes like selection, crossover, and mutation. The motivation for using GA comes from the idea of reducing the number of searches in a high number of DNA sequences. The basic structure of GA consists of a population of candidate solutions throughout several generations to find the best solution or set of possible solutions. The algorithm starts with the random generation of individuals that are then evaluated by a fitness function. At that point, a selection process selects new individuals called offspring that have some features of the parents and the others are discarded, then the genetic operators are applied on offspring. The parents are selected based on a probabilistic process biased by their fitness value using specified selection techniques that keep the diversity of the population large and prevent premature convergence on poor solutions. The most common technique for parent selection is the roulette-wheel method. In a roulette wheel selection, based on the number of individual say n, the circular wheel is divided into n pies. The size of each pie is proportional to the fitness of the element. The roulette wheel is spun randomly and the element where it stops is chosen as the parent. The selected two individuals are used to produce offspring; this means the elements of higher chance for selection have higher fitness.
After two selections of parents, a crossover is applied to select a random site, and the rightmost strings are swapped to produce new children, followed by applying the mutation process by changing the value of some selected position. The process is iteratively repeated until some stop criterion is reached on the satisfactory fitness level 139. Some methods 89,90 use standard GA. Liu et al 89 introduced FMGA algorithm that is based on simple GA. The genetic operators were specialized for motif discovery problem; the mutation operator was applied using PWM to reserve the completely conserved positions and the crossover operator was implemented with specially-designed gap penalties that optimize a scoring function. Che et al 90 proposed MDGA algorithm that is also based on simple GA. Other methods were proposed and most of them 91-93 used population clustering technique that partitions population into subpopulations before mating. Clustering is done by the similarity between solutions using data clustering algorithms.
Using population clustering technique, Paul et al 91 proposed an algorithm for PMP to detect multiple and weak motifs. Firstly, population initialization by random selecting of subsequences of motif length used to form a candidate consensus motif is done and then all input sequences are scanned to detect all similar substrings followed by sorting them according to a number of mismatches of each substring from the candidate motif. Next, scoring function is applied on them. This method was extended to detect weak motifs using alignment score metric and clustering technique. Finally, fitness of an individual (Cluster) is calculated to select the parents for using in GA. Vijayvargiya et al 92 proposed an algorithm with the position based representations of individual and clustering of population scheme. Gutierrez et al 93 proposed a new statistical GA that mixes GA structure with several statistical coefficients. In this method, all the input sequences are joined in a single super-sequence and the individuals are represented by a single position value; at that point, the super-sequence is separated into subsequences of any length regardless of the length of each sequence. For each generation of the population, the fitness value will be calculated against one of the subsequences. The fitness function is a combination of different functions applied at different moments of the process. The algorithm is started by checking if they are overrepresented in the given subsequence by calculating the difference of similar words between the candidate motif and the background motif. Then, the selection process is applied consisting of two steps; the first is using the Fluffiness Coefficient by the mean and standard deviation of the simple overrepresentation values and the individuals with the lowest Fluffiness value are eliminated from the population. The second step is using different coefficients to decide if the candidates are the final solutions of the problem or not for an individual has survived for at least 10 generations. The first coefficient is Thinness coefficient where the individuals with a Thinness coefficient above 0.6 are eliminated from the population. Mann-Whitney is the second coefficient for two populations to quantify, if one of them has a tendency to have larger values than the other. The first sample corresponds to the vector with the values stored for the number of similar words for the candidate motif in each generation, and the second sample is formed by the same values for the background motif. If the probability of both data samples coming from the same population is lower than 0.05, at that point, the motif is considered as a possible final solution. The third step is the creation of offspring by applying genetic operators, one-point crossover, and random mutation, on the selected parents. Finally, filtering and clustering of solutions is another method for every given motif width to generate the final solutions. 
Some methods enhance the GA by using hybrid methods that combine GA with another technique 94-96,140 or propose additional operators in addition to basic genetic operators 19,102.
Huo et al 94 proposed a new algorithm (GARP) that optimizes GA based on the random projection strategy (RPS) to identify planted (l, d) motifs. The idea behind using RPS before GA is to find good starting positions for being used in simple GA as an initial population instead of random population. Wang et al 95 presented GAEM algorithm that combines GA and EM for planted edited (l, d)-motif finding problem. In planted edited (l, d) -motif finding problem, the mutation in motifs due to substitution, deletion, and insertion, causes the motifs to have different lengths ranging from l-d to l+d. The EM algorithm is used after the random initial population to get the best starting positions to be used as a seed to GA. Wei et al 19 introduced GAME (Genetic Algorithm for Motif Elicitation) that proposes two operators called ADJUST and SHIFT to escape from local optima. The ADJUST operator escapes from a local optimum that occurs if any of the motif sites has not been aligned correctly by checking every possible site position in a sequence and choosing the best match to the sites in the other sequences. But SHIFT operator escapes from local optima that occur when all motif sites are slightly misaligned by shifting the subsequences in the direction which gives the best fitness. Yetian et al 102 also presented a new operator called addition to the standard GA operators. The algorithm started with a motif length of three and then the proposed operator is used until the length of the optimal motif reaches to the standard level. The result achieves a  higher score than the other three methods: Gibbs Sampler 141, GA 142 and GARPS 94 algorithm. 
2. PSO
PSO is a new global optimization technique 143 for solving continuous optimization problems. PSO algorithm is characterized by its simple computations and information sharing within the algorithm. It simulates the social behaviors of organisms movements in flocks of birds or schools of fish to find food sources and defenses against predators. Each particle uses its own flying experience and flying experience of other particles to adjust its "flying" so it combines self-experiences with social experiences. In self-experiences, the particle tries to get local best particle position and this is done by the particle stores. The best solution visited so far in its memory is called pbest, and it has an attraction towards this solution as it navigates through the solution search space. Social experiences are utilized to get best global particle position through the particle stores and the best solution visited by any particle and attraction towards this solution is called gbest. For an n-dimensional search space, the position and velocity of the ith particle are represented by Yi= (yi1, yi2, …, yin) and Vi= (vi1, vi2, vi3 …, vin), respectively. The previous best position is denoted as Pi= (pi1, pi2, …, pin). Pg is the global best particle in the swarm. For the swarm S, the new velocity of each particle is calculated according to the following equation:
Vin (t+1) = vin (t)+c1 r1 (pin-yin) +c2 r2 (pg-yin)
(1) The position is updated using: 
Yin (t+1) = Yin (t)+ Vin (t+1)                           
(2) Where i = 1, 2… S represents the particle index and n=1, 2… N represents the dimension. c1 and c2 are cognitive and social scaling parameters, respectively.
At each iteration, pbest and gbest are updated for every particle as per their fitness values. The procedure is iteratively repeated until some stop criterion is reached or satisfactory fitness level has been reached. 
PSO has wide applications and has been proven to be effective in motif finding problems 112. In recent years, there are few numbers of researches which utilized PSO to solve different types of motif finding problems. Chang et al 144 proposed a modified PSO algorithm where the position and velocity are adjusted to escape from local optima. Hardin et al 112 proposed a hybrid motif discovery approach based upon a combination of PSO and EM algorithm and PSO was utilized to generate a seed for the EM algorithm. In previous studies, modified PSO algorithm was proposed based on word dissimilarity graph 107,108. Modified PSO algorithm began to break all input sequences into l-mers and develop a novel mapping scheme that was used in the fitness function. Each particle kept track of a vector of locations in each given sequence and formed a consensus sequence. Then, the updated policy of PSO was modified where the new and current motif positions must be in the upper and lower bounds of the velocity. To escape from local optima, the algorithms scan all input sequences after gbest value reaches to a certain threshold to check if l-mer has a fitness value in comparison to gbest. Also, the method used "reset move" that moves all the current solution, pbest and gbest by a random distance. Finally, the termination criteria are determined automatically using repeat -based method.  Reddy et al 4 developed PMbPSO (PSO-based algorithm for Planted Motif Finding) algorithm. PMbPSO algorithm selects initial positions for all motifs by random and generates ten children for each parent (Motif) and then computes the fitness function for each parent and its children to get the best position; at that point, the best position from all particles is got followed by updating velocity and position for each particle for a number of iterations. Haruna et al 105 integrate Linear-PSO with binary search technique (LPBS) to minimize the execution time and increase the validity in motif discovery of DNA sequence for specific species. LPBS algorithm starts with initializing the population by selecting the target motif from the reference set and searching for similar motifs using the binary search, then applying the standard PSO algorithm to discover motifs. Recently, Ebtehal et al 113 introduced a hybrid GSA-PSO algorithm that combines local search capabilities of the Gravitational Search Algorithm (GSA) and global search capabilities of PSO algorithm.
3. ABC algorithm
ABC algorithm is a type of swarm-based algorithm proposed by Karaboga 145. It simulates the behavior of honey bees to find a food source. Two fundamental properties to obtain swarm intelligent behavior in honey bee colonies are self-organizing and division of labor. The bee colony contains two main groups which are employed and unemployed foragers. Employed bees are going to the food source which is visited previously and they are responsible for giving information to unemployed foragers about the quality of the assigned nectar supply. Many factors determine the value of a food source like its distance from the nest, its energy concentration and the degree of difficulty to extract this energy. Unemployed bees are categorized to scout and onlooker bees. Scout bee searches around the nest randomly to find new food sources while onlooker bee uses the information shared by employed foragers to establish a food source.
Employed bees’ numbers are the same for food sources’ numbers around the hive. At first, scout bees initialize all positions of food sources that represent possible solutions to the problem. Then, employed bees and onlooker bees exploit the nectar of food sources that corresponds to the quality (Fitness) of the associated solution, and this continual exploitation will finally cause them to become exhausted. The employed bee which turned into exploiting the exhausted food source turns into a scout bee looking for other food sources. The ABC algorithm involves four fundamental phases:
A neighbor food source FS is determined and calculated by the following equation:
Where i is a randomly selected parameter index,  is a randomly selected food source,  is a random number between -1, 1.
The fitness of this new food source is calculated and a greedy selection is applied between it and its parent i.e. between FS and F. From that point, employed bees share information about their food source via dancing on the dancing area with onlooker bees waiting inside the hive. 
Gonzalez-Alvarez et al 115 developed multiobjective ABC algorithm that aims to adapt the ABC algorithm to multiobjective context. The multiobjective optimizes more than one objective function at the same time to get a set of optimal solutions known as Pareto set. This algorithm defines three conflicting objectives as motif length, support, and similarity and multiobjective adaptations of ABC including multi-term fitness function, ranking, and sorting methodology are used. González et al 116 proposed Multiobjective Artificial Bee Colony with Differential Evolution algorithm (MO-ABC/DE) that combines the general schema of ABC with Differential Evolution. Recently, Karaboga et al 8 proposed consensus ABC algorithm. This is a discrete model based on a similarity value between consensus sequences of the ABC algorithm. The algorithm starts with random initialization, and then calculates the similarity value of the resultant consensus sequence followed by a new neighborhood selection method that is based totally on the similarity values of the consensus sequences. 
4. ACO algorithm 
The ACO algorithm 128 is a metaheuristic optimization technique that mimics the behavior of real ants, which try to find the shortest path to the food from their nest. The ants explore randomly the area surrounding their nest, and while moving, they leave a chemical pheromone trail on the ground that helps them to go to the nest. Ants interact with each other through this chemical component. The quantity of pheromone is proportional to the quantity and the quality of the food and this pheromone will be guided to other ants for the food source. When evaporation occurs, it reduces the attractive strength of pheromone. The evaporation takes a long time in the shorter path than the longest. The ants choose their way with strong pheromone concentrations. The characteristics of ACO algorithm are: (1) It depends on two variables including the amount and the evaporation of pheromone. The amount of pheromone is directly proportional to the richness of the food and inversely to evaporation; evaporation factor avoids the convergence to a locally optimal solution, (2) Ants act concurrently and independently, and (3) The behavior is stigmergy i.e. the interaction between ants is indirect, (4) Ants can explore vast areas without global view of the ground, (5) Starting point is selected at random.
The pheromone probability in terms of motif discovery is given by:
Where   is the probability of ant a choosing c in position l,   is the heuristic information to measure the frequency of letter c in input sequences, i.e. the weight of the letter c, β and α represent the influence of the pheromone trails, c is the character set of input sequences,   is the amount of pheromone on the character c at position l at time t, and is the amount of pheromone on neighborhood at position l which ant a has not visited yet at time t. An updated pheromone trial is:
Where yic is the total number of ants, which carry the character c at position l, p is the rate of the pheromone trails evaporation (0<p<1), and is the variable of pheromone deposited by kth ant on the character c at position l. A lot of methods used ACO algorithm in motif discovery. Machhi et al 109 used ACO  algorithm with a Gibbs sampling algorithm. An ACO algorithm finds better starting positions of the sequences provided as starting position for the Gibbs sampler method instead of random initialization. This algorithm starts with each ant choosing the path to construct a sample with motif length (m) and that depends on pheromone probability. Then, each ant is compared between the selected sample (m) and each substring in input sequences to get the set that represents the best matching substrings. Next, fitness function for each selected set is calculated. After that, the amount of pheromone is updated and finally iterated until no change. 
5. CS algorithm
CS is a new simple heuristic search algorithm that is more efficient than GA and PSO 146-148. CS is inspired from brood parasitism reproduction behavior of some cuckoo species in combination with Lévy flight behavior 149. The cuckoos lay their eggs in nests of the other birds with the abilities of selecting the lately spawned nests and removing existing eggs to increase the hatching probability of their eggs. If host birds discover these eggs, they either throw them away or abandon the nest and build a new nest. CS is characterized by the subsequent rules: 
Each cuckoo lays one egg at a time and disposes its egg in a random selected nest.
The nests that have high quality of eggs (Solutions) are the best and will continue to the following generations.
The number of accessible host nests is fixed, and a host bird can discover a parasitic egg with a probability Pa E [0,1].
To simulate the behavior of cuckoo reproduction, each egg in a nest is a solution and each cuckoo’s egg is a new solution. The aim is to supplant a not-so good solution in the nests with newer and better solutions by Lévy flights:
Where  is a new solution, is the current location, α is the step size and Levy(λ) is the transition probability or random walk based on the Lévy flights. CS is an effective global optimization algorithm and has many applications in different fields 150. Ebtehal et al 120 applied CS and Modified Adaptive Cuckoo Search (MACS) algorithm on PMP. The MACS algorithm enhances the basic CS algorithm by grouping parallel, incentive, information and adaptive strategies.
DNA Motif Databases
Synthetic DNA sequence

The simulated data set was first introduced by Pevzner et al 39 to create planted (l, d) motif in n sequences selected randomly from a set of N sequences where n≤N. There are online sites 151,152 to automatically create planted (l, d) motif.
Real DNA sequences
There are several online databases of DNA motifs listed in table 2 with a short description of each one.


Discussion :

As sequencing technology has improved, the volume of biological sequence data in public databases increases and this increases the importance of motif discovery in computer science and molecular biology 153. Motif discovery has some difficulties: (1) Motifs are not identical to each other, (2) The motif sequence is unknown, (3) Motif location is unknown, (4) Existing of random motifs, and (5) The location of a motif in each sequence is unrelated to other ones.
The motif discovery algorithms are classified into two major groups as enumerative approach and probabilistic approach. As the name of the first class imparts, it is counting and comparing oligonucleotide frequencies for all possible motifs, based on specific motif model description. It has some advantages: (1) Global optimality, (2) It is appropriate for short motifs; therefore, it is useful for motif finding in eukaryotic genomes, (3) With optimized data structures, it becomes fast, and (4) Can find totally constrained motifs. However, the problems of this approach are: (1) It needs to be post-processed with some clustering systems as the typical transcription factor motifs often have several weak constrained positions, (2) It suffers from the problem of producing too many spurious motifs, (3) It represents certain numbers of motifs (11 wild cards), and (4) Long time processing is another problem as it checks every possible substring in the input dataset.
There are many algorithms based on sub-categories of this approach. The first sub-category is based on the enumerative approach without any enhancement; this leads to getting all possible motifs but at the same time there are many disadvantages which were mentioned above. YMF is designed for yeast genomes, it can’t detect motifs with large length or the number of degenerate positions is significant. DREME is a discriminative motif discovery tool to discover multiple, short, non-redundant, statistically significant motifs in short runtime using simplified form of regular expression words (11 wildcard characters). DREME algorithm was tested on ChIP-seq datasets [13 mouse ES Cell (mESC)], 3 mouse erythrocytes and one human cell line (ChIP-seq datasets)). DREME is compared to MEME algorithm and the results show that DREME algorithm can correctly predict motifs on ChIPseq experiment sequences in a shorter runtime than MEME. However, it can only find short motifs (from 4 to 8 bp) and an occurrence of the motif is well defined, as is the number of possible motifs of a given width. 
The second sub-category is based on simple enumerative approach but it can discover multiple and weak motifs at the same time so, it is considered as the small enhancement of simple-based method. CisFinder technique tested on ChIP-seq data of TFs was expressed in ES cells. CisFinder can accurately identify PFMs of TF binding motifs and it is faster than MEME 133, WeederH 154, and RSAT 31. CisFinder can find motifs with a low level of enrichment, but it does not support outputting motifs of a specified length.
The algorithm proposed is similar to CisFinder algorithm, but it supports outputting motifs of a specified length 31. They reported that this algorithm combined accuracy and low computational time, but it is limited to short (l, d) motifs.
The first two sub-categories have nearly the same disadvantages, but they are time-consuming. There are many suggestions to improve this problem; in tree-based methods, it is also based on enumerating all possible motifs but it is time-consuming using suffix tree. Weeder algorithm accelerates the word enumeration technique by using a suffix tree, but it operates with a low efficiency for long motifs 11. FMotif algorithm could identify unknown motif lengths on ChIP-enriched regions. Next, MCES algorithm is a more powerful algorithm and there are two contributions in the miming step; it uses an adaptive frequency threshold for each possible length and it is based on Map Reduce strategy to deal well with very large datasets. The MCES is tested on simulated data and real data (ChIP-seq) and the results show that MCES can find the motif like the published one and run in a short time. MCES has many advantages like identifying motifs without OOPS constraint, handling very large data sets, handling the full-size input sequences and making full use of the information contained in the sequences, completing the computation with a good time performance and good identification accuracy.
Graph-based techniques are the same simple-based techniques but they represent the motif-instance by a graph to facilitate the search strategy.
There are many search strategies to enhance time operator.
Sub categories from five to seven try to enhance time operator using random concept whether random searching about the motif like hashing strategy or selecting random candidate motif or many candidate motifs.
However, the random projection algorithm takes long time operations as it depends on random initialization and it repeats the process for n times.
In fixed candidates and modified candidate-based techniques, the technique scans all input sequences to get the matched motifs.
In the probabilistic approach, the probability of each nucleotide base to be present in that position of the sequence is multiplied to yield the probability of the sequence. PWM is an appealing model due to its simplicity and wide application and it can represent an infinite number of motifs 15 but it has some problems 155: (1) It scales poorly with dataset size, (2) PWM representation assumes the independence of each position within a binding site, while this may be not true in reality, and (3) It converges to locally optimal solution. 
EM algorithm is a popular example of probabilistic approach, but it has some limitations: (1) It converges to a local maximum, (2) It is extremely sensitive to initial conditions, (3) It assumes one motif per sequence, and (4) The running time of EM is linear with the length of the input sequences. MEME added several extensions to overcome these limitations where MEME runs the EM algorithm many times from different starting points using every existing l-mer in the sequence dataset. However, the running time scales poorly with the size of the dataset so, MEME algorithm can discover motifs in a satisfactory time by a compromising strategy such  as discarding a majority of the sequences but discarding data is far from ideal as it can decrease the chance of discovering motifs corresponding to infrequent cofactors 156. STEME runs faster than the MEME algorithm, but with a large dataset, it finds motifs up to width 8 as its efficiency decreases quickly as the motif width increases. EXTREME achieves better running time, but at the same time, it requires too much storage space for processing large data. Gibbs sampling algorithm is another example of a probabilistic approach. It converges to local optimum, and is less dependent on initial parameters, but more dependent on all sequences exhibiting the motif. Advanced methods based on Bayesian technique are a subclass of probabilistic approach; examples of this class are the speedy algorithms with better objective function and BaMM algorithm 13. BaMM was tested on 446 human ChIP-seq datasets and the results show that the precision increases by 30-40% compared to PWM. However, BaMM algorithm has some limitation: (1) It uses EM algorithm which has some disadvantages as described above, (2) The running time is longer than EM algorithm which makes it difficult to apply on a big data set, (3) It defines ZOOPS model only, and (4) It requires motif length as an input parameter. Finally, EPP algorithm can be applied to OOPS, ZOOPS, and TCM sequence models and the results indicate that it can efficiently and effectively recognize motifs.
Evolutionary algorithms have been recognized due to their advantages of synthesizing local search and global search 94. GA and PSO are the famous evolutionary algorithms. GA is a discrete technique, but PSO is a continuous technique that must be modified to handle discrete design variables. GA and PSO are similar in the presence of interaction between the population’ members, but unlike GA that changes the population from generation to another, PSO keeps the same population; moreover, PSO does not have genetic operators and no notion of the "survival of the fittest".
Based on GA, a lot of algorithms are proposed. The simple GA favors selection of the fittest, which may be a biologically meaningless solution and this tends to remove the diversity of the population. Simple GA identifies OOPS model only and ignores ZOOPS and TCM models which are not correct because some sequences contain multiple or other weak motifs that also need to be identified 157. FMGA and MDGA algorithms are examples on simple GA. FMGA performs better than MEME and Gibbs sampler algorithms. MDGA algorithm is compared with a Gibbs sampling algorithm when tested on real datasets 158 and the results showed that it achieves higher accuracy in short computation time; the computation time does not explicitly depend on the sequence length. To overcome simple GA problems, clustering approach was presented. Clustering scheme enables to retain the diversity of population over the generations and it can find various motifs. Based on clustering technique, a new scoring function was developed that takes some consideration like, the number of mutations, and the number of motifs per sequence 91. The authors reported that it gives effective result when it’s applied to simulated and real data. Previous methods presented by Vijayvargiya et al 83 could identify multiple motifs of the same length and discover long motifs when tested on synthetic and real datasets 92. Gutierrez et al 93 presented a new algorithm that has many advantages; there are no assumptions about the presence of the motifs in the input sequences, it is a heuristic algorithm, variable-length gaps can be predicted, and the background set of sequences is generated by shuffling the candidate motifs instead of shuffling the sequences themselves. The algorithm was tested on 52 data sets of four different organisms and the efficiency was compared with 14 methods using eight statistics. The proposed method gives its best results with fly and mouse data sets. However, when connecting all input sequences into one sequence and then dividing it, it may cause loss of motifs. Based on hybrid methods, GARP algorithm is better than the projection algorithm when tested on both simulated and real biological data, while GAEM algorithm tested on a simulated dataset, gives a success rate higher than HIGEDA 140 and when tested on a real dataset, it performs better than HIGEDA, GLAM2, and MEME. Finally, based on algorithms that enhance genetic operators, the GAME algorithm performs better than MEME and BioProspector when applied on simulation and real-data; the algorithm presented by Fan et al 102 has a higher score than the other three methods of Gibbs Sampler 141, GA 142, and GARPS 94.
From the proposed algorithms based on GA, it can be concluded that the methods presented previously 19,90,92,94,102 used simple fitness function although there are a lot of suggestions to improve this function. Though the methods proposed by Paul et al, Vijayvargiya et al, and Gutierrez et al 91-93 can identify ZOOPS model, they cannot identify multiple motifs of variable lengths instead of multiple motifs of the same lengths. Methods by Paul et al and Vijayvargiya et al 91,92 ignore the TCM model, while a method by Gutierrez et al 93 identifies it. The methods of Paul et al, Vijayvargiya et al, and Gutierrez et al 91,93 enhance the selection strategy by proposing new fitness function. The methods proposed by Huo et al and Wang et al 94,95 enhance the GA algorithm by combining it with another algorithm to get the starting positions to be used as seed to the GA algorithm, but this increases the computational time also. The selection of EM in the method by Wang et al 95 is a bad choice as EM has many limitations as mentioned above. The proposed methods by Wei et al and Fan et al 19,102 try to enhance the GA algorithm in another aspect by adding operators to escape from local optimum, but they also didn’t overcome the limitations of the simple GA algorithm. All discussed methods based on the GA algorithm require some parameters determined by the user as motif length. It can be said that the GA algorithm can be enhanced by using a new method that can identify OOPS, ZOOPS, and TCM models, escape from local optimum, improve the fitness function, have good starting positions instead of random initialization, detect multiple motifs with variable lengths, and have intelligent operators in addition to selection, crossover and mutation operators.
PSO is an exploration-exploitation trade off. Exploration is the ability to get the global optimum by search in various regions while the exploitation is the ability to locate the optimum by concentrating the search around a promising candidate solution 159. PSO is a simple concept, easily programmable 160, but it can easily fall in a local optimum and low convergence rate 161.
Based on PSO algorithm, Chang et al 144 obtained global optimum in protein sequences when the results were compared with the PROSITE database while Hardin et al’s algorithm 112 suffers from local solution. The methods in Lei et al 107,108 were tested on both simulated (PMP) and real biological data (E. coli); they are efficient and accurate in motif discovery, but they suffer from a long time delay due to full scan on all sequences to check the value of gbest and the repeat -based method was used to automatically terminate the program. PMbPSO algorithm is tested on simulated and real biological datasets 162; the results indicate that PMbPSO algorithm performs better than MbGA and PbGA 163 and it is able to find longer size motifs with a minimum number of mismatches. LPBS algorithm searches for motifs based on reference set. LPBS was tested on Genbank (COI) and there were only two selected species; BosTaurus (Cow-10 DNA sequences with lengths between 658 and 715 bp) and GallusGallus (Chicken-9 DNA sequences with lengths between 537 and 699 bp). The longest motifs which are able to discover LPBS algorithm are 294 and 261 bp in BosTaurus and GallusGallus, respectively. The authors did not evaluate the LPBS method with other previous algorithms of motif discovery. GSA-PSO algorithm was tested on synthetic 39 and real data (TRANSFAC) 164 and the authors reported that the GSA-PSO algorithm performs better than AlignACE, MEME, and GALF 165. GSA-PSO algorithm was compared with old algorithms, although there are a lot of recent algorithms for motif discovery. The presented methods based on the PSO algorithm have some limitations and the methods proposed by Reddy et al and Elewa et al 4,113 used very simple fitness function and the program terminated manually by determining the numbers of iterations by the user. All the PSO-based methods start with random initialization except the method proposed by Abdullah et al 105; this leads to time consuming operations and may not provide any correct solution.  Moreover, PSO-based algorithms detect the motifs with OOPS model and ignore ZOOPS, and TCM models, and require motif length as the user input.
Few methods based on ABC, ACO, and CS are the most recent techniques in motif discovery.
ABC algorithm is a popular stochastic algorithm due to it is simple mechanism, and it requires few parameters which is easy to implement 166. Based on ABC algorithm, MO-ABC/DE algorithm is the same as the multiobjective ABC algorithm except for the generation of new candidate solutions; the DE operator was used to generate new candidates that combine existing ones according to a set of simple crossover-mutation schemes. The consensus ABC algorithm, another example of ABC technique, was tested on three different data sets and compared with a GA-based technique (MOGAMOD), a DE-based technique (DEPT) 167, and a genetic operator-based ABC algorithm (MOABC) 168. Consensus ABC algorithm achieves the highest similarity values of the motifs with different lengths; it used the neighbor selection strategy based on similarity values between consensus sequences and this improved the probability of the selection of a food source. 
ACO algorithm has some advantages as; it usually avoids fault convergence due to distributed computation and can be used in dynamic applications. 
From ACO algorithm, it can be concluded that there are some disadvantages: (1) It can easily trap local optimum, (2) The consuming time is uncertain, i.e. it may take short/long time to converge, (3) The code is not obvious, (4) The ants must visit all points to get a good result that is unsuitable for motif discovery as it takes long time to check every substring in the input sequences and finally, (5) ACO requires many parameters. Based on ACO, Machhi et al 117 reported that the total required computing time is reduced.
Finally, there are several advantages for CS algorithm: (1) It usually converges to the global optimality, (2) It combines local and global capabilities and local search takes a quarter of the total search time and the remaining time is for global search which makes CS algorithm more efficient on the global scale, (3) Levy flight is used in its global search instead of standard random walks, so the CS can explore the search space more efficiently, and (4) It is easy to implement, compared with another metaheuristic search which essentially depends on only a single parameter (pa). In a previous study, it was reported that the CSO and MACS can be effectively used to obtain global optimum motif patterns for all used input sequences and they are faster than other nature inspired algorithms 120. Recently, Grey Wolf Optimization for motif finding (GWOMF) 169 was applied to get motifs in DNA input sequences.


Conclusion :

The motif discovery algorithms are classified into four classes of enumerative, probability, nature inspired and combinatorial ones and each one has many subclasses. The comparison between them is listed in table 3. The enumerative technique is an exhaustive search with a simple concept, and it is the only technique that ensures to find all motifs (Except weak motifs). However, it is very slow, and requires a lot of parameters; as a result, it becomes difficult to deal with either long motifs or big data. Moreover, the degenerative positions are limited because of restricted representation of motifs.
Probability approach overcomes many weak points of the enumerative approach like speed, dealing with long motifs and big data, numbers of required parameters and degenerated positions, and can find weak motifs. But the probability approach is a complex concept and can’t find all motifs.
The third category, natured inspired approach, combines the main features of the first two approaches.
This approach is a simple concept and it is a global search but at the same time can deal with the big data and long motifs. It has a flexible representation of motifs and this lead to an unlimited number of degenerated positions.
The last category is the combinatorial approach; its ability depends on the hybrid algorithms that combine to form the required algorithm.
The common features of all algorithms are the flexibility of objective function.
The presented classification of motif discovery algorithms is useful to get a general overview and to build a good motif discovery algorithm.
From various suggested methods for motif discovery problem, a good tool for motif discovery can be built. The tool must contain these features: (1) It should identify all models, i.e. OOPS, ZOOPS, TCM, (2) It should possess global search ability, (3) It should optimize the scoring function, (4) Parallel processing ability is a necessity, (5) It should have optimized data structures, (6) It should be able to detect long and short motifs, (7) It should have  the capacity of multiple motif discoveries at the same time, i.e. without removing the discovered motif to find the next, (8) And multiple motifs discovery with variable lengths, and (9) It needs to have an automatic system by decreasing the number of required parameters determined by the user. The next phase of this work is to develop a new motif discovery algorithm that combines the main features of enumerative and probabilistic approaches and to use it as a seed to a nature-inspired algorithm by considering the factors mentioned above.


References :
  1. Xiong J. Essential bioinformatics. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press; 2006. 339 p.
  2. Zhang X, Zhou X, Wang X. Basics for Bioinformatics. In: Jiang R, Zhang X, Zhang MQ, (eds). Basics of Bioinformatics. Beijing, Heidelberg: Tsinghua University Press and Springer-Verlag; 2013. p. 1-25.
  3. Al Bataineh MF, Al-qudah Z, Al-Zaben A. A novel iterative sequential Monte Carlo (ISMC) algorithm for motif discovery. IET Signal Processing 2015;2.
  4. Růžička M, Kulhánek P, Radová L, Čechová A, Špačková N, Fajkusová L, et al. DNA mutation motifs in the genes associated with inherited diseases. PloS One 2017;12(8):e0182377.   [PubMed]
  5. Reddy US, Arock M, Reddy A. Planted (l, d)-motif finding using particle swarm optimization. IJCA Special Issue ECQT 2010;2:51-56.
  6. Keith JM. Bioinformatics. Volume I. Data, Sequence Analysis and Evolution (Methods in Molecular Biology). New York: Humana Press; 2008. 562 p.
  7. Zhang Y, Wang P, Yan M. An entropy-based position projection algorithm for motif discovery. BioMed Res Int 2016;2016.
  8. Pavesi G, Mereghetti P, Mauri G, Pesole G. Weeder Web: discovery of transcription factor binding sites in a set of sequences from co-regulated genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2004;32(Web Server issue):W199-203.   [PubMed]
  9. Karaboga D, Aslan S. A discrete artificial bee colony algorithm for detecting transcription factor binding sites in DNA sequences. Genet Mol Res 2016;15(2):1-11.   [PubMed]
  10. Bailey TL. DREME: motif discovery in transcription factor ChIP-seq data. Bioinformatics 2011;27(12):1653-1659.   [PubMed]
  11. Sharov AA, Ko SH. Exhaustive search for over-represented DNA sequence motifs with CisFinder. DNA Res 2009;16(5):261-273.
  12. Jia C, Carson MB, Wang Y, Lin Y, Lu H. A new exhaustive method and strategy for finding motifs in ChIP-enriched regions. PLoS One 2014;9(1):e86044   [PubMed]
  13. Yu Q, Huo H, Chen X, Guo H, Vitter JS, Huan J. An efficient algorithm for discovering motifs in large DNA data sets. IEEE Transactions on Nanobioscience 2015;14(5):535-544.
  14. Sinha S, Tompa M. YMF: a program for discovery of novel transcription factor binding sites by statistical overrepresentation. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31(13):3586-3588.   [PubMed]
  15. van Helden J, André B, Collado-Vides J. Extracting regulatory sites from the upstream region of yeast genes by computational analysis of oligonucleotide frequencies. J Mol Bio. 1998;281(5):827-842.   [PubMed]
  16. Thomas-Chollier M, Herrmann C, Defrance M, Sand O, Thieffry D, van Helden J. RSAT peak-motifs: motif analysis in full-size ChIP-seq datasets. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40(4):e31.   [PubMed]
  17. Ma X, Kulkarni A, Zhang Z, Xuan Z, Serfling R, Zhang MQ. A highly efficient and effective motif discovery method for ChIP-seq/ChIP-chip data using positional information. Nucleic Acids Res 2012;40(7):e50.   [PubMed]
  18. Pavesi G, Mauri G, Pesole G. An algorithm for finding signals of unknown length in DNA sequences. Bioinformatics 2001;17(Suppl 1):S207-S214.
  19. Eskin E, Pevzner PA. Finding composite regulatory patterns in DNA sequences. Bioinformatics 2002;18 (Suppl 1):S354-S363.
  20. Evans PA, Smith AD. Toward Optimal Motif Enumeration. In: Dehne F., Sack JR., Smid M. (eds) Algorithms and Data Structures. WADS 2003. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 2748. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2003.p.47-58.
  21. Pisanti N, Carvalho AM, Marsan L, Sagot MF. RISOTTO: Fast Extraction of Motifs with Mismatches. In: Correa J.R., Hevia A., Kiwi M. (eds) LATIN 2006: Theoretical Informatics. LATIN 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 3887. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. p. 757-768.
  22. Cazaux B, Rivals E. Reverse engineering of compact suffix trees and links: A novel algorithm. J Discrete Algorithms 2013;28(1):9-22.
  23. Leibovich L, Paz I, Yakhini Z, Mandel-Gutfreund Y. DRIMust: a web server for discovering rank imbalanced motifs using suffix trees. Nucleic Acids Res 2013;41(Web Server issue):W174-W179.   [PubMed]
  24. Pevzner PA, Sze SH. Combinatorial approaches to finding subtle signals in DNA sequences. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol 2000;8:269-78.   [PubMed]
  25. Satya RV, Mukherjee A. New algorithms for finding monad patterns in DNA sequences. International Symposium on String Processing and Information Retrieval 2004:273-285.
  26. Liang S, Samanta MP, Biegel B. cWINNOWER algorithm for finding fuzzy DNA motifs. J Bioinforma Comput Biol 2004;2(1):47-60.
  27. Sze SH, Lu S, Chen J. Integrating sample-driven and pattern-driven approaches in motif finding. International Workshop on Algorithms in Bioinformatics 2004:438-449.
  28. Sun HQ, Low MYH, Hsu WJ, Rajapakse JC. RecMotif: a novel fast algorithm for weak motif discovery. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11(Suppl 11):S8.
  29. Sun HQ, Low MYH, Hsu WJ, Rajapakse JC. ListMotif: A time and memory efficient algorithm for weak motif discovery. 2010 IEEE International Conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering; 2010 Nov 15-16; Hangzhou, China. New York, IEEE. p.254-260.
  30. Sun HQ, Low MYH, Hsu WJ, Tan CW, Rajapakse JC. Tree-structured algorithm for long weak motif discovery. Bioinformatics 2011;27(19):2641-2647.
  31. Yang X, Rajapakse JC. Graphical approach to weak motif recognition. Genome Informatics 2004;15(2):52-62.
  32. Ho LS, Rajapakse JC. Graphical approach to weak motif recognition in noisy data sets. International Workshop on Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics, 2006, p. 23-31.
  33. Chen F, Leung HCM. Voting algorithms for discovering long motifs. Proceedings of the 3rd Asia-Pacific Bioinformatics Conference. Singapore; 2005 Jan; 261-271.
  34. Rajasekaran S, Balla S, Huang CH. Exact algorithms for planted motif problems J Computational Biology 2005;12(8):1117-1128.
  35. Sze SH, Zhao X. Improved pattern-driven algorithms for motif finding in DNA sequences. In: Eskin E, Ideker T, Raphael B, Workman C (eds). Systems Biology and Regulatory Genomics. USA: Springer, 2007. p. 198-211.
  36. Davila J, Balla S, Rajasekaran S. Space and time efficient algorithms for planted motif search. International Conference on Computational Science 2006:822-829.
  37. Kuksa PP, Pavlovic V. Efficient motif finding algorithms for large-alphabet inputs. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11 (Suppl 8): S1.   [PubMed]
  38. Rajasekaran S, Dinh H. A speedup technique for (l, d)-motif finding algorithms BMC Res Notes 2011;8;4:54.   [PubMed]
  39. Dinh H, Rajasekaran S, Kundeti VK. PMS5: an efficient exact algorithm for the (ℓ, d)-motif finding problem. BMC Bioinformatics 2011;12:410.
  40. Bandyopadhyay S, Sahni S, Rajasekaran S. PMS6: A fast algorithm for motif discovery. Int J Bioinformatics Res Applications 2014;10(4/5):369-383.
  41. Yu Q, Huo H, Zhang Y, Guo H. PairMotif: a new pattern-driven algorithm for planted (l, d) DNA motif search, PLoS One 2012;7(10):e48442.   [PubMed]
  42. Ho ES, Jakubowski CD, Gunderson SI. iTriplet, a rule-based nucleic acid sequence motif finder. Algorithms Mol Biol. 2009;4:14.   [PubMed]
  43. Davila J, Balla S, Rajasekaran S. Fast and practical algorithms for planted (l, d) motif search. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2007;4(4):544-552.   [PubMed]
  44. Davila J, Balla S, Rajasekaran S. Pampa: An improved branch and bound algorithm for planted (l, d) motif search. 2007. Tech. rep.
  45. Sharma D, Rajasekaran S. A simple algorithm for (l, d) motif search. Proceedings of the 6th Annual IEEE conference on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology; 2009 March 30 - April 02; Nashville, Tennessee, USA. p.148-154.
  46. Chen ZZ, Wang L. Fast exact algorithms for the closest string and substring problems with application to the planted (l, d)-motif model. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2011;8(5):1400-1410.   [PubMed]
  47. Dinh H, Rajasekaran S, Davila J. qPMS7: A fast algorithm for finding (ℓ, d)-motifs in DNA and protein sequences. PLoS One 2012;7(7):e41425.   [PubMed]
  48. Tanaka S. Improved exact enumerative algorithms for the planted (l, d)-motif search problem. IEEE/ ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2014;11(2):361-374.
  49. Buhler J, Tompa M. Finding motifs using random projections. J Comput Biol 2002;9(2):225-242.   [PubMed]
  50. Raphael B, Liu LT, Varghese G. A uniform projection method for motif discovery in DNA sequences. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2004;1(2):91-94.   [PubMed]
  51. Wang X, Miao Y, Cheng M. Finding motifs in DNA sequences using low-dispersion sequences. J Comput Biol 2014;21(4):320-329.   [PubMed]
  52. Keich U, Pevzner PA. Finding motifs in the twilight zone. Bioinformatics 2002;18(10):1374-1381.
  53. Price A, Ramabhadran S, Pevzner PA. Finding subtle motifs by branching from sample strings. Bioinformatics 2003;19(Suppl 2):ii149-155.   [PubMed]
  54. Yu Q, Huo H, Zhao R, Feng D, Vitter JS, Huan J. RefSelect: a reference sequence selection algorithm for planted (l, d) motif search. BMC Bioinformatics 2016;17(Suppl 9):266.   [PubMed]
  55. Bailey TL, Elkan C. The value of prior knowledge in discovering motifs with MEME. Proc Int Conf Intell Syst Mol Biol 1995;3:21-29.   [PubMed]
  56. Reid JE, Wernisch L. STEME: efficient EM to find motifs in large data sets. Nucleic Acids Res 2011 Oct;39(18):e126.   [PubMed]
  57. Quang D, Xie X. EXTREME: an online EM algorithm for motif discovery. Bioinformatics 2014;30(12):1667-1673.   [PubMed]
  58. Sun C, Huo H, Yu Q, Guo H, Sun Z. An affinity propagation-based DNA motif discovery algorithm. BioMed Res Int 2015;2015.
  59. Hughes JD, Estep PW, Tavazoie S, Church GM. Computational identification of cis-regulatory elements associated with groups of functionally related genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Mol Biol 2000;296(5):1205-1214.   [PubMed]
  60. Wu H, Wong PW, Caddick MX, Sibthorp C. Finding DNA regulatory motifs with position-dependent models. J Med Bioeng 2013;2.
  61. Lawrence CE, Altschul SF, Boguski MS, Liu JS, Neuwald AF, Wootton JC. Detecting subtle sequence signals: a Gibbs sampling strategy for multiple alignment. Science 1993;262(5131):208-14.   [PubMed]
  62. Thijs G, Marchal K, Lescot M, Rombauts S, De Moor B, Rouzé P, et al. A Gibbs sampling method to detect overrepresented motifs in the upstream regions of coexpressed genes. J Comput Biol 2002;9(2):447-464.   [PubMed]
  63. Liu X, Brutlag DL, Liu JS. BioProspector: discovering conserved DNA motifs in upstream regulatory regions of co-expressed genes. Pac Symp Biocomput 2001:127-138.   [PubMed]
  64. Kilpatrick AM, Ward B, Aitken S. Stochastic EM-based TFBS motif discovery with MITSU. Bioinformatics 2014;30(12):i310–i318.   [PubMed]
  65. Bi C. A Monte Carlo EM algorithm for de novo motif discovery in biomolecular sequences. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2009;6(3):370-386.
  66. Bi C. SEAM: A stochastic EM-type algorithm for motif-finding in biopolymer sequences. J Bioinform Comput Biol 2007;5(1):47-77.   [PubMed]
  67. Jensen ST, Liu XS, Zhou Q, Liu JS. Computational discovery of gene regulatory binding motifs: a Bayesian perspective. Statistical Science 2004;188-204.
  68. Xing EP, Wu W, Jordan MI, Karp RM. LOGOS: a modular Bayesian model for de novo motif detection. Proc IEEE Comput Soc Bioinform Conf 2003;2:266-276.   [PubMed]
  69. Siebert M, Söding J. Bayesian Markov models consistently outperform PWMs at predicting motifs in nucleotide sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2016;44(13):6055-6069.   [PubMed]
  70. Jääskinen V, Parkkinen V, Cheng L, Corander J. Bayesian clustering of DNA sequences using Markov chains and a stochastic partition model Stat Appl Genet Mol Biol 2014;13(1):105-121.   [PubMed]
  71. Frith MC, Li MC, Weng Z. Cluster-Buster: Finding dense clusters of motifs in DNA sequences. Nucleic Acids Res 2003;31(13):3666-3668.   [PubMed]
  72. Miller AK, Print CG, Nielsen PM, Crampin EJ. A Bayesian search for transcriptional motifs. PLoS One 2010;5(11):e13897.   [PubMed]
  73. Li SM, Wakefield J, Self S. A transdimensional Bayesian model for pattern recognition in DNA sequences. Biostatistics 2008;9(4):668-685.   [PubMed]
  74. Fratkin E, Naughton BT, Brutlag DL, Batzoglou S. MotifCut: regulatory motifs finding with maximum density subgraphs. Bioinformatics 2006;22(14):e150-157.   [PubMed]
  75. Boucher C, Brown DG, Church P. A Graph Clustering Approach to Weak Motif Recognition. In: Giancarlo R., Hannenhalli S. (eds) Algorithms in Bioinformatics. WABI 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4645. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
  76. Hertz GZ, Hartzell GW 3rd, Stormo GD. Identification of consensus patterns in unaligned DNA sequences known to be functionally related. Comput Appl Biosci 1990;6(2):81-92   [PubMed]
  77. Huang CW, Lee WS, Hsieh SY. An improved heuristic algorithm for finding motif signals in DNA sequences. IEEE/ACM Trans Comput Biol Bioinform 2011;8(4) :959-975.   [PubMed]
  78. Stine M, Dasgupta D, Mukatira S. Motif discovery in upstream sequences of coordinately expressed genes. The 2003 Congress on Evolutionary Computation 2003. CEC '03:1596-1603.
  79. Congdon CB, Fizer CW, Smith NW, Gaskins HR, Aman J, Nava GM, Mattingly C. Preliminary results for GAMI: A genetic algorithms approach to motif inference. Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology; 2005 Nov 15; La Jolla, CA, USA. 2005 IEEE Symposium on Computational Intelligence in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology: New York: IEEE; 2005. p. 1-8.
  80. Liu FF, Tsai JJ, Chen RM, Chen S, Shih S. FMGA: finding motifs by genetic algorithm. Fourth IEEE Symposium on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering. 2004 July 26; Taichung, Taiwan. Proceedings. Fourth IEEE Symposium on Bioinformatics and Bioengineering: New York: IEEE; 2004. p. 459-466.
  81. Che D, Song Y, Rasheed K. MDGA: motif discovery using a genetic algorithm. Genetic and Evolutionary Computation Conference, GECCO 2005, Proceedings, Washington DC, USA, June 25-29, 2005. p. 447-452.
  82. Paul TK, Iba H. Identification of weak motifs in multiple biological sequences using genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the 8th annual Conference on Genetic and Evolutionary Computation. July 8–12, 2006, Seattle, Washington, USA. p. 271-278.
  83. Vijayvargiya S, Shukla P. A genetic algorithm with clustering for finding regulatory motifs in DNA sequences. Int J Computer Applications (IJCA) special issue on AI techniques-novel approaches and practical applications 2011;6-10.
  84. Gutierrez JB, Frith M, Nakai K. A genetic algorithm for motif finding based on statistical significance. (2015) A Genetic Algorithm for Motif Finding Based on Statistical Significance. In: Ortuño F., Rojas I. (eds) Bioinformatics and Biomedical Engineering. IWBBIO 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9043. Springer, Cham.
  85. Huo H, Zhao Z, Stojkovic V, Liu L. Optimizing genetic algorithm for motif discovery. Math Comput Model 2010;52(11-12):2011-2020.
  86. Wang X, Miao Y. GAEM: a hybrid algorithm incorporating GA with EM for planted edited motif finding problem. Curr Bioinform 2014;9(5):463-469.
  87. Li L. GADEM: a genetic algorithm guided formation of spaced dyads coupled with an EM algorithm for motif discovery. J Comput Biol 2009;16(2):317-329.   [PubMed]
  88. Liu Y, Liu XS, Wei L, Altman RB, Batzoglou S. Eukaryotic regulatory element conservation analysis and identification using comparative genomics. Genome Res 2004;14(3):451-458.   [PubMed]
  89. Zare-Mirakabad F, Ahrabian H, Sadeghi M, Hashemifar S, Nowzari-Dalini A, Goliaei B. Genetic algorithm for dyad pattern finding in DNA sequences. Genes Genet Syst 2009;84(1):81-93.   [PubMed]
  90. Bi C. A genetic-based EM motif-finding algorithm for biological sequence analysis. in Computational Intelligence and Bioinformatics and Computational Biology, 2007. CIBCB'07. IEEE Symposium on, 2007, pp. 275-282.
  91. Wang X, Song T, Wang Z, Su Y, Liu X. MRPGA: motif detecting by modified random projection strategy and genetic algorithm. J Computational Theoretical Nanoscience 2013;10(5):1209-1214.
  92. Sheng X, Wang K. Motif identification method based on Gibbs sampling and genetic algorithm. J Cluster Computing 2017;20(1):33-41.
  93. Wei Z, Jensen ST. GAME: detecting cis-regulatory elements using a genetic algorithm. Bioinformatics 2006;22(13):1577-1584   [PubMed]
  94. Fan Y, Wu W, Liu R, Yang W. An iterative algorithm for motif discovery. Procedia Computer Science 2013;24:25-29.
  95. Li X, Wang D. (2009) An Improved Genetic Algorithm for DNA Motif Discovery with Public Domain Information. In: Köppen M., Kasabov N., Coghill G. (eds) Advances in Neuro-Information Processing. ICONIP 2008. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 5506. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
  96. Kaya M. MOGAMOD: Multi-objective genetic algorithm for motif discovery. Expert Systems Applications 2009;36(2):1039-1047.
  97. Abdullah SLS, Harun H. SPECIES MOTIF EXTRACTION USING LPBS. Proceedings of the 4 th International Conference on Computing and Informatics, ICOCI 2013, Sarawak, Malaysia. Universiti Utara Malaysia 2013.
  98. Zare-Mirakabad F, Ahrabian H, Sadeghi M, Mohammadzadeh J, Hashemifar S, Nowzari-Dalini A, et al. PSOMF: An algorithm for pattern discovery using PSO. Proceedings of the Third IAPR International Conferences on Pattern Recognition in Bioinformatics, Melbourne. Australia; 2008. p. 61-72.
  99. Lei C, Ruan J. A particle swarm optimization algorithm for finding DNA sequence motifs. 2008 IEEE International Conference on Bioinformatics and Biomeidcine Workshops, 166-173.
  100. Lei C, Ruan J. A novel swarm intelligence algorithm for finding DNA motifs. Int J Comput Biol Drug Des 2009;2(4):323-339.
  101. Verma RS, Singh S, Kumar S. Dna sequence assembly using particle swarm optimization. Int J Comput Appl 2011;28(10):33-38.
  102. Karabulut M, Ibrikci T. A Bayesian scoring scheme based particle swarm optimization algorithm to identify transcription factor binding sites. Appl Soft Comput 2012;12(9):2846-2855.
  103. Lei C, Ruan J. A particle swarm optimization-based al-gorithm for finding gapped motifs. BioData Min 2010; 3:9.   [PubMed]
  104. Hardin CT, Rouchka EC. DNA motif detection using particle swarm optimization and expectation-maximi-zation. Proc IEEE Swarm Intell Symp 2005;2005:181-184.   [PubMed]
  105. Elewa ES, Abdelhalim MB, Mabrouk MS. An efficient system for finding functional motifs in genomic DNA sequences by using nature-inspired algorithms. In: Hassanien A, Shaalan K, Gaber T, Azar A, Tolba M, (eds). Proceedings of the International Conference on Advanced Intelligent Systems and Informatics 2016. AISI 2016. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 533. Springer, Champ. p. 215-224.
  106. Akbari R, Zeighami V, Ziarati K, Akbari I. Develop-ment of an efficient hybrid method for motif discovery in DNA sequences. AUT J Electrical Engineering 2012; 44(1):63-75.
  107. González-Álvarez DL, Vega-Rodríguez MA, Gómez-Pulido JA, Sánchez-Pérez JM. Comparing multiob-jective artificial bee colony adaptations for discovering DNA motifs. Evol Comput Mach Learn Data Min Bioinform 2012;7246:110-121.
  108. González-Álvarez DL, Vega-Rodríguez MA. Hybrid multiobjective artificial bee colony with differential evolution applied to motif finding. Evol Comput Mach Learn Data Min Bioinform 2013;7833:68-79.
  109. Machhi V, Patel MS, Degama J. Motif finding with application to the transcription factor binding sites problem. Int J Comput Appl 2015;120(15):7-10.
  110. Bouamama S, Boukerram A, Al-Badarneh AF. Motif finding using ant colony optimization. ANTS 2010; 6234:464-471.
  111. Yang CH, Liu YT, Chuang LY. DNA motif discovery based on ant colony optimization and expectation maximization. Proceedings of the International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists; 2011 March 16-18; Hong Kong.
  112. Elewa ES, Abdelhalim M, Mabrouk MS. Adaptation of cuckoo search algorithm for the motif finding problem. 2014 10th International Computer Engineering Conference (ICENCO); 2014 Dec 29-30; Giza: Egypt. New York: IEEE. p. 87-91.
  113. Makolo A, Osofisan A, Adebiyi E. Comparative ana-lysis of similarity check mechanism for motif extra-ction. African J Computing & ICT 2012;5 (1):53-58.
  114. Liu XS, Brutlag DL, Liu JS. An algorithm for finding protein–DNA binding sites with applications to chromatin-immunoprecipitation microarray experiment-s. Nat Biotechnol 2002;20(8):835-839.   [PubMed]
  115. Mendes ND, Casimiro AC, Santos PM, Sá-Correia I, Oliveira AL, Freitas AT. MUSA: a parameter free algorithm for the identification of biologically significant motifs. Bioinformatics. 2006;22(24):2996-3002.   [PubMed]
  116. Hu J, Yang YD, Kihara D. EMD: an ensemble algorithm for discovering regulatory motifs in DNA sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 2006;7:342.   [PubMed]
  117. Bussemaker HJ, Li H, Siggia ED. Building a dictionary for genomes: identification of presumptive regulatory sites by statistical analysis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2000;97(18):10096-100.   [PubMed]
  118. Wang G, Yu T, Zhang W. WordSpy: identifying transcription factor binding motifs by building a dictionary and learning a grammar. Nucleic Acids Res 2005;33(Web Server issue):W412-6.   [PubMed]
  119. Goldberg DE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimi-zation and machine learning. 1st ed. Boston, MA, USA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co; 1989. 412 p.
  120. Koza JR. Genetic programming: on the programming of computers by means of natural selection. Vol. 1. USA: MIT Press; 1992. 825 p.
  121. Storn R, Price K. Differential evolution–a simple and efficient heuristic for global optimization over continuous spaces. J Glob Optim 1997;11(4):341-359.
  122. Beyer HG, Schwefel HP. Evolution strategies-A com-prehensive introduction. Nat Comput 2002;1:3-52.
  123. De Jong KA. Evolutionary Computation. A Unified Approach. Cambridge, MA, USA: MIT Press; 2006. 268 p.
  124. Civicioglu P, Besdok E. A conceptual comparison of the Cuckoo-search, particle swarm optimization, differential evolution and artificial bee colony algorithms. Artif Intell Rev 2013;39(4):315-346.
  125. Viswanathan GM, Afanasyev V, Buldyrev S, Murphy E. Lévy flight search patterns of wandering albatrosses. Nature 1996;381:413-415.
  126. Niu B, Wang H. Bacterial colony optimization. Discrete Dynamics in Nature and Society 2012;2012.
  127. Shah-Hosseini H. The intelligent water drops algorithm: a nature-inspired swarm-based optimization algori-thmInt. J Bio-Inspired Computation 2009;1:71-79.
  128. Karaboga D, Akay B, Ozturk C. Artificial bee colony (ABC) optimization algorithm for training feed-forward neural networks. International Conference on Modeling Decisions for Artificial Intelligence 2007;4617:318-329.
  129. Dorigo M, Maniezzo V, Colorni A. Ant system: optimization by a colony of cooperating agents. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, Part B (Cybernetics) 1996; 26(1):29-41.
  130. Chauhan R, Agarwal P. A Review: Applying genetic algorithms for motif discovery. Int J Computer Technology & Applications 2012;3(4):1510-1515.
  131. Lee MT. Motif finding," class notes for GCB 535 / CIS 535, Department of Computer and Information Science, University of Pennsylvania, 10 Oct 2004.
  132. Lawrence CE, Reilly AA. An expectation maximization (EM) algorithm for the identification and characteri-zation of common sites in unaligned biopolymer sequences. Proteins 1990;7(1):41-51.   [PubMed]
  133. Machanick P, Bailey TL. MEME-ChIP: motif analysis of large DNA datasets. Bioinformatics 2011;27(12): 1696-1697.   [PubMed]
  134. Bailey TL, Williams N, Misleh C, Li WW. MEME: discovering and analyzing DNA and protein sequence motifs. Nucleic Acids Res 2006;34(web server issue): W369-W373.   [PubMed]
  135. Bailey TL, Bodén M, Whitington T, Machanick P. The value of position-specific priors in motif discovery using MEME. BMC Bioinformatics 2010;11:179.   [PubMed]
  136. Tanaka E, Bailey TL, Keich U. Improving MEME via a two-tiered significance analysis. Bioinformatics 2014;30 (14):1965-1973.   [PubMed]
  137. Ma W, Noble WS, Bailey TL. Motif-based analysis of large nucleotide data sets using MEME-ChIP. Nat Protoc 2014;9(6):1428-1450.   [PubMed]
  138. Liu JS, Neuwald AF, Lawrence CE. Bayesian models for multiple local sequence alignment and Gibbs sampling strategies. J Am Stat Assoc 1995;90(432): 1156-1170
  139. Fister Jr I, Yang XS, Fister I, Brest J, Fister D. A brief review of nature-inspired algorithms for optimization. arXiv preprint arXiv 2013:1307.4186v1.
  140. Malhotra R, Singh N, Singh Y. Genetic algorithms: Concepts, design for optimization of process controllers. Computer Inform Sci 2011;4(2):39.
  141. Le T, Altman T, Gardiner K. HIGEDA: a hierarchical gene-set genetics based algorithm for finding subtle motifs in biological sequences. Bioinformatics 2010;26 (3):302-309.   [PubMed]
  142. Thompson W, Rouchka EC, Lawrence CE. Gibbs recursive sampler: finding transcription factor binding sites. Nucleic Acids Res 200331(13):3580-3585.   [PubMed]
  143. Lo NW, Changchien SW, Chang YF, Lu TC. Human promoter prediction based on sorted consensus sequence patterns by genetic algorithms, Proceedings of the International Congress on Biological and Medical Engineering, 2002, p. 1540.
  144. Kennedy J. Particle swarm optimization. In: Sammut C, Webb GI,(eds). Encyclopedia of machine learning. Boston, MA: Springer; 2011. 1061 p.
  145. Chang BC, Ratnaweera A, Halgamuge SK, Watson HC. Particle swarm optimisation for protein motif discovery. Genet Program Evolvable Mach 2004;5(2):203-214.
  146. Karaboga, Dervis. (2005). An Idea Based on Honey Bee Swarm for Numerical Optimization, Technical Report - TR06. Technical Report, Erciyes University.
  147. Yang XS, Deb S. Cuckoo search via Lévy flights. In: Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing. 2009 World Congress on Nature & Biologically Inspired Computing (NaBIC); 2009 9-11 Dec; Coimbatore, India. USA: IEEE, 2010. p.210-214.
  148. Yang XS, Deb S. Engineering optimisation by cuckoo search. Int J Mathematical Modelling and Numerical Optimisation 2010;1(4):330-343.
  149. Yang XS, Deb S. Multiobjective cuckoo search for design optimization. Comput Oper Res 2013;40(6): 1616-1624.
  150. Pavlyukevich I. Lévy flights, non-local search and simulated annealing. J Comput Phys 2007;226(2):1830-1844.
  151. Yang XS, Deb S. Cuckoo search: recent advances and applications. Neural Comput Appl 2014;24:169-174.
  152. Rouchka EC, Hardin CT. rMotifGen: random motif generator for DNA and protein sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:292.   [PubMed]
  153. Ponty Y, Termier M, Denise A. GenRGenS: software for generating random genomic sequences and structures. Bioinformatics 2006;22(12):1534-1535.   [PubMed]
  154. McDonald E, Brown CT. Working with big data in bioinformatics. The Performance of Open Source Applications.
  155. Pavesi G, Zambelli F, Pesole G. WeederH: an algorithm for finding conserved regulatory motifs and regions in homologous sequences. BMC Bioinformatics 2007;8:46   [PubMed]
  156. Li L. Graphic network based methods in discovering TFBS motifs [master's thesis]. [Ohio (USA)]: The Ohio State University; 2012. 38 p.
  157. Boucher C. Combinatorial and probabilistic approaches to motif recognition [Phd thesis]. [Waterloo, Ontario, Canada]: University of Waterloo; 2010. 138 p.
  158. Lones M, Tyrrell A. Regulatory motif discovery using a population clustering evolutionary algorithm. IEEE/ ACM Transactions on Computational Biology and Bioinformatics 2007;4(3):403-414.
  159. Stormo GD, Hartzell GW. Identifying protein-binding sites from unaligned DNA fragments. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1989;86(4):1183-1187.   [PubMed]
  160. Trelea IC. The particle swarm optimization algorithm: convergence analysis and parameter selection. Inf Process Lett 2003;85(6):317-325.
  161. Hassan R, Cohanim B, De Weck O, Venter G. A comparison of particle swarm optimization and the genetic algorithm. Proceedings of the 46th AIAA/ ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Material Conference; 2005 April 18-21; Austin, Texas, p. 1897.
  162. Li M, Du W, Nian F. An adaptive particle swarm optimization algorithm based on directed weighted complex network. Math Probl Eng Volume 2014, 7 pages.
  163. Zhu J, Zhang MQ. SCPD: a promoter database of the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Bioinformatics 1999; 15(7-8):607-611.   [PubMed]
  164. Martínez-Arellano G, Brizuela CA. Comparison of simple encoding schemes in GA’s for the motif finding problem: Preliminary results. In: Sagot MF, Walter MEMT, (eds). Advances in Bioinformatics and Computational Biology. BSB 2007. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 4643. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007, p. 22-33.
  165. Tompa M, Li N, Bailey TL, Church GM, De Moor B, Eskin E, Favorov AV, et al. Assessing computational tools for the discovery of transcription factor binding sites. Nat Biotechnol 2005;23(1):137-144.   [PubMed]
  166. Chan TM, Leung KS, Lee KH. Proceedings of the 7th annual conference on Genetic and evolutionary computation. TFBS identification by position-and consensus-led genetic algorithm with local filtering; 2007 Jul 7-11; London, England, p. 377-384.
  167. Kumar B, Kumar D. A review on artificial bee colony algorithm. Int J Eng Technol 2013;2(3):175.
  168. González-Álvarez DL, Vega-Rodríguez MA, Gómez-Pulido JA, Sánchez-Pérez JM. Solving the motif discovery problem by using differential evolution with pareto tournaments. Proceedings of the 2010 IEEE Congress on Evolutionary Computation (CEC 2010); 2010 July 18-23; Barcelona, Spain. Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society; p.4140-4147.
  169. González-Álvarez DL, Vega-Rodríguez MA, Pulido JAG, Sánchez-Pérez JM. EvoBIO'11 Proceedings of the 9th European conference on Evolutionary computation, machine learning and data mining in bioinformatics. Finding motifs in DNA sequences applying a multiobjective artificial bee colony (MOABC) algorithm; 2011 April 27-29; Torino, Italy: Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 89-100.
  170. Hashim F, Mabrouk MS, Al-Atabany W. GWOMF: Grey Wolf Optimization for motif finding. Proceedings of the 13th International Computer Engineering Conference (ICENCO); 2017 Dec 27-28; Cairo, Egypt. New York: IEEE. 405 p.