Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24472686›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2014

Application of experimentally verified transcription factor binding sites models for computational analysis of ChIP-Seq data.

Victor G Levitsky, Ivan V Kulakovskiy, Nikita I Ershov, Dmitry Yu Oshchepkov, Vsevolod J Makeev, T C Hodgman, Tatyana I Merkulova

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. From biophysics to 'omics and systems biology.European biophysics journal : EBJ · 2019
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Osmolality/salinity-responsive enhancers (OSREs) control induction of osmoprotective genes in euryhaline fish.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Victor G LevitskyInstitute of Cytology and Genetics of the Siberian Division of Russian Academy of Sciences, Lavrentieva Prospect 10, Novosibirsk 630090, Russia. levitsky@bionet.nsc.ru.
Ivan V Kulakovskiy
Nikita I Ershov
Dmitry Yu Oshchepkov
Vsevolod J Makeev
T C Hodgman
Tatyana I Merkulova
Russian Academy of Sciences · RUUniversity of Nottingham · GBVavilov Institute of General Genetics · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChIP-Seq is widely used to detect genomic segments bound by transcription factors (TF), either directly at DNA binding sites (BSs) or indirectly via other proteins. Currently, there are many software tools implementing different approaches to identify TFBSs within ChIP-Seq peaks. However, their use for the interpretation of ChIP-Seq data is usually complicated by the absence of direct experimental verification, making it difficult both to set a threshold to avoid recognition of too many false-positive BSs, and to compare the actual performance of different models.

resultsUsing ChIP-Seq data for FoxA2 binding loci in mouse adult liver and human HepG2 cells we compared FoxA binding-site predictions for four computational models of two fundamental classes: pattern matching based on existing training set of experimentally confirmed TFBSs (oPWM and SiteGA) and de novo motif discovery (ChIPMunk and diChIPMunk). To properly select prediction thresholds for the models, we experimentally evaluated affinity of 64 predicted FoxA BSs using EMSA that allows safely distinguishing sequences able to bind TF. As a result we identified thousands of reliable FoxA BSs within ChIP-Seq loci from mouse liver and human HepG2 cells. It was found that the performance of conventional position weight matrix (PWM) models was inferior with the highest false positive rate. On the contrary, the best recognition efficiency was achieved by the combination of SiteGA & diChIPMunk/ChIPMunk models, properly identifying FoxA BSs in up to 90% of loci for both mouse and human ChIP-Seq datasets.

conclusionsThe experimental study of TF binding to oligonucleotides corresponding to predicted sites increases the reliability of computational methods for TFBS-recognition in ChIP-Seq data analysis. Regarding ChIP-Seq data interpretation, basic PWMs have inferior TFBS recognition quality compared to the more sophisticated SiteGA and de novo motif discovery methods. A combination of models from different principles allowed identification of proper TFBSs.

Indexed as

Chromatin ImmunoprecipitationComputational BiologyAnimalsBinding SitesMiceTranscription FactorsTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID24472686
PMCPMC4234207
OpenAlexW2006853093

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.