Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23093591›Full record

ArticleNucleic acids research2013

MuMoD: a Bayesian approach to detect multiple modes of protein-DNA binding from genome-wide ChIP data.

Leelavati Narlikar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nucleic acids research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
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

1 author.

Leelavati NarlikarChemical Engineering and Process Development Division, CSIR-National Chemical Laboratory, Pune 411008, India. l.narlikar@ncl.res.in

Funding

DBT-Wellcome Trust India Alliance 500188-Z-11-ZWellcome Trust 500188/Z/11/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

High-throughput chromatin immunoprecipitation has become the method of choice for identifying genomic regions bound by a protein. Such regions are then investigated for overrepresented sequence motifs, the assumption being that they must correspond to the binding specificity of the profiled protein. However this approach often fails: many bound regions do not contain the 'expected' motif. This is because binding DNA directly at its recognition site is not the only way the protein can cause the region to immunoprecipitate. Its binding specificity can change through association with different co-factors, it can bind DNA indirectly, through intermediaries, or even enforce its function through long-range chromosomal interactions. Conventional motif discovery methods, though largely capable of identifying overrepresented motifs from bound regions, lack the ability to characterize such diverse modes of protein-DNA binding and binding specificities. We present a novel Bayesian method that identifies distinct protein-DNA binding mechanisms without relying on any motif database. The method successfully identifies co-factors of proteins that do not bind DNA directly, such as mediator and p300. It also predicts literature-supported enhancer-promoter interactions. Even for well-studied direct-binding proteins, this method provides compelling evidence for previously uncharacterized dependencies within positions of binding sites, long-range chromosomal interactions and dimerization.

Indexed as

Chromatin ImmunoprecipitationSoftwareAnimalsBayes TheoremDNADNA-Binding ProteinsEmbryonic Stem CellsGATA3 Transcription FactorGenomicsMiceProtein BindingT-LymphocytesTranscription FactorsDNADNA-Binding ProteinsGATA3 Transcription FactorTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID23093591
PMCPMC3592440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.