ArticleBMC genomics2011
Erroneous attribution of relevant transcription factor binding sites despite successful prediction of cis-regulatory modules.
Article in BMC genomics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- NovelbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Hedgehog and Drosophila germ cell migration.Development (Cambridge, England) · 2025Review
- Perspectives on Gene Regulatory Network Evolution.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2017Review
- Article
- Genome-wide analyses of Shavenbaby target genes reveals distinct features of enhancer organization.Genome biology · 2013Article
- Study of Cis-regulatory Elements in the Ascidian Ciona intestinalis.Current genomics · 2013Article
- Genome-wide screens for in vivo Tinman binding sites identify cardiac enhancers with diverse functional architectures.PLoS genetics · 2013Article
- Article
- Identifying transcriptional cis-regulatory modules in animal genomes.Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Developmental biologyReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCis-regulatory modules are bound by transcription factors to regulate gene expression. Characterizing these DNA sequences is central to understanding gene regulatory networks and gaining insight into mechanisms of transcriptional regulation, but genome-scale regulatory module discovery remains a challenge. One popular approach is to scan the genome for clusters of transcription factor binding sites, especially those conserved in related species. When such approaches are successful, it is typically assumed that the activity of the modules is mediated by the identified binding sites and their cognate transcription factors. However, the validity of this assumption is often not assessed.
resultsWe successfully predicted five new cis-regulatory modules by combining binding site identification with sequence conservation and compared these to unsuccessful predictions from a related approach not utilizing sequence conservation. Despite greatly improved predictive success, the positive set had similar degrees of sequence and binding site conservation as the negative set. We explored the reasons for this by mutagenizing putative binding sites in three cis-regulatory modules. A large proportion of the tested sites had little or no demonstrable role in mediating regulatory element activity. Examination of loss-of-function mutants also showed that some transcription factors supposedly binding to the modules are not required for their function.
conclusionsOur results raise important questions about interpreting regulatory module predictions obtained by finding clusters of conserved binding sites. Attribution of function to these sites and their cognate transcription factors may be incorrect even when modules are successfully identified. Our study underscores the importance of empirical validation of computational results even when these results are in line with expectation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.