ArticleBMC genomics2012
Cell-type specificity of ChIP-predicted transcription factor binding sites.
Article in BMC genomics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Transcriptional responses of cancer cells to heat shock-inducing stimuli involve amplification of robust HSF1 binding.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Identification and characterization of male reproduction-related genes in pig (Sus scrofa) using transcriptome analysis.BMC genomics · 2020Article
- Lessons from eRNAs: understanding transcriptional regulation through the lens of nascent RNAs.Transcription · 2020Review
- Targeted therapy of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma: the NRF2 signaling pathway as target.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2018Review
- Genetic variants with gene regulatory effects are associated with diisocyanate-induced asthma.The Journal of allergy and clinical immunology · 2018Article
- Role of the chromatin landscape and sequence in determining cell type-specific genomic glucocorticoid receptor binding and gene regulation.Nucleic acids research · 2017Article
- MixChIP: a probabilistic method for cell type specific protein-DNA binding analysis.BMC bioinformatics · 2015Article
- Genome-wide target analysis of NEUROD2 provides new insights into regulation of cortical projection neuron migration and differentiation.BMC genomics · 2015Article
- A widespread role of the motif environment in transcription factor binding across diverse protein families.Genome research · 2015Article
- Transcriptional (ChIP-Chip) Analysis of ELF1, ETS2, RUNX1 and STAT5 in Human Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm.International journal of molecular sciences · 2015Article
- Human intestinal epithelial cells express interleukin-10 through Toll-like receptor 4-mediated epithelial-macrophage crosstalk.Journal of innate immunity · 2015Article
- Constrained transcription factor spacing is prevalent and important for transcriptional control of mouse blood cells.Nucleic acids research · 2014Article
- Key regulators control distinct transcriptional programmes in blood progenitor and mast cells.The EMBO journal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContext-dependent transcription factor (TF) binding is one reason for differences in gene expression patterns between different cellular states. Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) identifies genome-wide TF binding sites for one particular context-the cells used in the experiment. But can such ChIP-seq data predict TF binding in other cellular contexts and is it possible to distinguish context-dependent from ubiquitous TF binding?
resultsWe compared ChIP-seq data on TF binding for multiple TFs in two different cell types and found that on average only a third of ChIP-seq peak regions are common to both cell types. Expectedly, common peaks occur more frequently in certain genomic contexts, such as CpG-rich promoters, whereas chromatin differences characterize cell-type specific TF binding. We also find, however, that genotype differences between the cell types can explain differences in binding. Moreover, ChIP-seq signal intensity and peak clustering are the strongest predictors of common peaks. Compared with strong peaks located in regions containing peaks for multiple transcription factors, weak and isolated peaks are less common between the cell types and are less associated with data that indicate regulatory activity.
conclusionsTogether, the results suggest that experimental noise is prevalent among weak peaks, whereas strong and clustered peaks represent high-confidence binding events that often occur in other cellular contexts. Nevertheless, 30-40% of the strongest and most clustered peaks show context-dependent regulation. We show that by combining signal intensity with additional data-ranging from context independent information such as binding site conservation and position weight matrix scores to context dependent chromatin structure-we can predict whether a ChIP-seq peak is likely to be present in other cellular contexts.
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.