Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26818008›Full record

ArticleBMC bioinformatics2016

Predicting transcription factor site occupancy using DNA sequence intrinsic and cell-type specific chromatin features.

Sunil Kumar, Philipp Bucher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Using Machine-Learning Algorithms for Eutrophication Modeling: Case Study of Mar Menor Lagoon (Spain).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Homotypic cooperativity and collective binding are determinants of bHLH specificity and function.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2019
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

2 authors.

Sunil KumarSwiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC), School of Life Sciences, EPFL, Station 15, Lausanne, CH-1015, Switzerland. kumar.sunil@epfl.ch.
Philipp BucherSwiss Institute for Experimental Cancer Research (ISREC), School of Life Sciences, EPFL, Station 15, Lausanne, CH-1015, Switzerland. philipp.bucher@epfl.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the mechanisms by which transcription factors (TF) are recruited to their physiological target sites is crucial for understanding gene regulation. DNA sequence intrinsic features such as predicted binding affinity are often not very effective in predicting in vivo site occupancy and in any case could not explain cell-type specific binding events. Recent reports show that chromatin accessibility, nucleosome occupancy and specific histone post-translational modifications greatly influence TF site occupancy in vivo. In this work, we use machine-learning methods to build predictive models and assess the relative importance of different sequence-intrinsic and chromatin features in the TF-to-target-site recruitment process.

methodsOur study primarily relies on recent data published by the ENCODE consortium. Five dissimilar TFs assayed in multiple cell-types were selected as examples: CTCF, JunD, REST, GABP and USF2. We used two types of candidate target sites: (a) predicted sites obtained by scanning the whole genome with a position weight matrix, and (b) cell-type specific peak lists provided by ENCODE. Quantitative in vivo occupancy levels in different cell-types were based on ChIP-seq data for the corresponding TFs. In parallel, we computed a number of associated sequence-intrinsic and experimental features (histone modification, DNase I hypersensitivity, etc.) for each site. Machine learning algorithms were then used in a binary classification and regression framework to predict site occupancy and binding strength, for the purpose of assessing the relative importance of different contextual features.

resultsWe observed striking differences in the feature importance rankings between the five factors tested. PWM-scores were amongst the most important features only for CTCF and REST but of little value for JunD and USF2. Chromatin accessibility and active histone marks are potent predictors for all factors except REST. Structural DNA parameters, repressive and gene body associated histone marks are generally of little or no predictive value.

conclusionsWe define a general and extensible computational framework for analyzing the importance of various DNA-intrinsic and chromatin-associated features in determining cell-type specific TF binding to target sites. The application of our methodology to ENCODE data has led to new insights on transcription regulatory processes and may serve as example for future studies encompassing even larger datasets.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsGene Expression RegulationMachine LearningBinding SitesCell LineageChromatinChromatin ImmunoprecipitationDNAGenome, HumanHistonesHumansNucleosomesProtein Processing, Post-TranslationalTranscription FactorsChromatinDNAHistonesNucleosomesTranscription Factors

Identifiers

PMID26818008
PMCPMC4895346

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.