Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24974204›Full record

ArticleBioinformatics (Oxford, England)2014

Learning protein-DNA interaction landscapes by integrating experimental data through computational models.

Jianling Zhong, Todd Wasson, Alexander J Hartemink

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformatics (Oxford, England), 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. RoboCOP: Multivariate State Space Model Integrating Epigenomic Accessibility Data to Elucidate Genome-Wide Chromatin Occupancy.Research in computational molecular biology : ... Annual International Conference, RECOMB ... : proceedings. RECOMB (Conference : 2005- ) · 2020
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Implications of Big Data for cell biology.Molecular biology of the cell · 2015
    Article
  6. Protein-DNA binding in high-resolution.Critical reviews in biochemistry and molecular biology · 2015
    Review
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

3 authors.

Jianling ZhongProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, Knowledge Systems and Informatics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 and Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Todd WassonProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, Knowledge Systems and Informatics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 and Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.
Alexander J HarteminkProgram in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, Knowledge Systems and Informatics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 and Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA Program in Computational Biology and Bioinformatics, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, Knowledge Systems and Informatics, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550 and Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Durham, NC 27708, USA.

Funding

Project 6P50GM081883 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI BENFEY, PHILIP N · 2007 to 2012
$14.9M
Computational Biology and Bioinformatics Training ProgramT32GM071340 · NIGMS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI MAGWENE, PAUL MITAARI · 2005 to 2020
$3.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM081883NIGMS NIH HHS P50 GM081883-01NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM071340
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

motivationTranscriptional regulation is directly enacted by the interactions between DNA and many proteins, including transcription factors (TFs), nucleosomes and polymerases. A critical step in deciphering transcriptional regulation is to infer, and eventually predict, the precise locations of these interactions, along with their strength and frequency. While recent datasets yield great insight into these interactions, individual data sources often provide only partial information regarding one aspect of the complete interaction landscape. For example, chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) reveals the binding positions of a protein, but only for one protein at a time. In contrast, nucleases like MNase and DNase can be used to reveal binding positions for many different proteins at once, but cannot easily determine the identities of those proteins. Currently, few statistical frameworks jointly model these different data sources to reveal an accurate, holistic view of the in vivo protein-DNA interaction landscape.

resultsHere, we develop a novel statistical framework that integrates different sources of experimental information within a thermodynamic model of competitive binding to jointly learn a holistic view of the in vivo protein-DNA interaction landscape. We show that our framework learns an interaction landscape with increased accuracy, explaining multiple sets of data in accordance with thermodynamic principles of competitive DNA binding. The resulting model of genomic occupancy provides a precise mechanistic vantage point from which to explore the role of protein-DNA interactions in transcriptional regulation. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: The C source code for compete and Python source code for MCMC-based inference are available at http://www.cs.duke.edu/∼amink. CONTACT: amink@cs.duke.edu SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalBinding, CompetitiveComputational BiologyDNADNA-Binding ProteinsGene Expression RegulationNucleosomesProtein BindingThermodynamicsTranscription FactorsTranscription, GeneticDNADNA-Binding ProteinsNucleosomesTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID24974204
PMCPMC4184258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.