Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22950945›Full record

ArticleGenome biology2012

Classification of human genomic regions based on experimentally determined binding sites of more than 100 transcription-related factors.

Kevin Y Yip, Chao Cheng, Nitin Bhardwaj, James B Brown, Jing Leng, Anshul Kundaje, Joel Rozowsky, Ewan Birney, Peter Bickel, Michael Snyder and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genome biology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 163 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
163citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
15.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

163 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 267 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. TheiScience · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Epigenetics of neural differentiation: Spotlight on enhancers.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Accurate prediction ofNAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2021
    Article

103 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Kevin Y YipProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520, USA.
Chao Cheng
Nitin Bhardwaj
James B Brown
Jing Leng
Anshul Kundaje
Joel Rozowsky
Ewan Birney
Peter Bickel
Michael Snyder
Mark Gerstein
Yale University · USStanford University · USUniversity of California, Berkeley · USEuropean Bioinformatics Institute · GBWhitney Museum of American Art · US

Funding

EDAC: ENCODE Data Analysis CenterU41HG007000 · NHGRI · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI WENG, ZHIPING · 2012 to 2016
$9.8M
Nonparametric methods for functional and translational genomicsK99HG006698 · NHGRI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BERKELEY · PI BROWN, JAMES BENTLEY · 2012 to 2013
$206k
NHGRI NIH HHS K99 HG006698NHGRI NIH HHS U41 HG007000
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTranscription factors function by binding different classes of regulatory elements. The Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE) project has recently produced binding data for more than 100 transcription factors from about 500 ChIP-seq experiments in multiple cell types. While this large amount of data creates a valuable resource, it is nonetheless overwhelmingly complex and simultaneously incomplete since it covers only a small fraction of all human transcription factors.

resultsAs part of the consortium effort in providing a concise abstraction of the data for facilitating various types of downstream analyses, we constructed statistical models that capture the genomic features of three paired types of regions by machine-learning methods: firstly, regions with active or inactive binding; secondly, those with extremely high or low degrees of co-binding, termed HOT and LOT regions; and finally, regulatory modules proximal or distal to genes. From the distal regulatory modules, we developed computational pipelines to identify potential enhancers, many of which were validated experimentally. We further associated the predicted enhancers with potential target transcripts and the transcription factors involved. For HOT regions, we found a significant fraction of transcription factor binding without clear sequence motifs and showed that this observation could be related to strong DNA accessibility of these regions.

conclusionsOverall, the three pairs of regions exhibit intricate differences in chromosomal locations, chromatin features, factors that bind them, and cell-type specificity. Our machine learning approach enables us to identify features potentially general to all transcription factors, including those not included in the data.

Indexed as

Genome, HumanRegulatory Sequences, Nucleic AcidArtificial IntelligenceBinding SitesHumansModels, GeneticModels, StatisticalNucleotide MotifsOpen Reading FramesSequence Analysis, DNATranscription FactorsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID22950945
PMCPMC3491392
OpenAlexW2100847260

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.