ArticlePLoS computational biology2015
Contribution of Sequence Motif, Chromatin State, and DNA Structure Features to Predictive Models of Transcription Factor Binding in Yeast.
Article in PLoS computational biology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- TSPTFBS 2.0: trans-species prediction of transcription factor binding sites and identification of their core motifs in plants.Frontiers in plant science · 2023Article
- Plant Promoters and Terminators for High-Precision Bioengineering.Biodesign research · 2023Review
- An Evidence Theory and Fuzzy Logic Combined Approach for the Prediction of Potential ARF-Regulated Genes in Quinoa.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Mysteries of gene regulation: Promoters are not the sole triggers of gene expression.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2022Article
- TSSFinder-fast and accurate ab initio prediction of the core promoter in eukaryotic genomes.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2021Article
- An interpretable bimodal neural network characterizes the sequence and preexisting chromatin predictors of induced transcription factor binding.Genome biology · 2021Article
- Learning the Regulatory Code of Gene Expression.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 2021Review
- MTTFsite: cross-cell type TF binding site prediction by using multi-task learning.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- Cis-Regulatory Code for Predicting Plant Cell-Type Transcriptional Response to High Salinity.Plant physiology · 2019Article
- Cross-Cell-Type Prediction of TF-Binding Site by Integrating Convolutional Neural Network and Adversarial Network.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Article
- Labelled regulatory elements are pervasive features of the macrophage genome and are dynamically utilized by classical and alternative polarization signals.Nucleic acids research · 2019Article
- Regulatory Divergence in Wound-Responsive Gene Expression between Domesticated and Wild Tomato.The Plant cell · 2018Article
- Article
- Transversions have larger regulatory effects than transitions.BMC genomics · 2017Article
- Predictive Models of Spatial Transcriptional Response to High Salinity.Plant physiology · 2017Article
- Utility and Limitations of Using Gene Expression Data to Identify Functional Associations.PLoS computational biology · 2016Article
- DNA Shape Features Improve Transcription Factor Binding Site Predictions In Vivo.Cell systems · 2016Article
- Predicting transcription factor site occupancy using DNA sequence intrinsic and cell-type specific chromatin features.BMC bioinformatics · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Transcription factor (TF) binding is determined by the presence of specific sequence motifs (SM) and chromatin accessibility, where the latter is influenced by both chromatin state (CS) and DNA structure (DS) properties. Although SM, CS, and DS have been used to predict TF binding sites, a predictive model that jointly considers CS and DS has not been developed to predict either TF-specific binding or general binding properties of TFs. Using budding yeast as model, we found that machine learning classifiers trained with either CS or DS features alone perform better in predicting TF-specific binding compared to SM-based classifiers. In addition, simultaneously considering CS and DS further improves the accuracy of the TF binding predictions, indicating the highly complementary nature of these two properties. The contributions of SM, CS, and DS features to binding site predictions differ greatly between TFs, allowing TF-specific predictions and potentially reflecting different TF binding mechanisms. In addition, a "TF-agnostic" predictive model based on three DNA "intrinsic properties" (in silico predicted nucleosome occupancy, major groove geometry, and dinucleotide free energy) that can be calculated from genomic sequences alone has performance that rivals the model incorporating experiment-derived data. This intrinsic property model allows prediction of binding regions not only across TFs, but also across DNA-binding domain families with distinct structural folds. Furthermore, these predicted binding regions can help identify TF binding sites that have a significant impact on target gene expression. Because the intrinsic property model allows prediction of binding regions across DNA-binding domain families, it is TF agnostic and likely describes general binding potential of TFs. Thus, our findings suggest that it is feasible to establish a TF agnostic model for identifying functional regulatory regions in potentially any sequenced genome.
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.