Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29588420›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2018

Comprehensive, high-resolution binding energy landscapes reveal context dependencies of transcription factor binding.

Daniel D Le, Tyler C Shimko, Arjun K Aditham, Allison M Keys, Scott A Longwell, Yaron Orenstein, Polly M Fordyce

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

52 citing papers in PubMed, 92 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Amplicon/Protein Bead Display enables quantitativebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  5. PoolParty: streamlined design of DNA sequence libraries in Python.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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.

Daniel D LeDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Tyler C ShimkoDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Arjun K AdithamDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Allison M KeysStanford ChEM-H (Chemistry, Engineering, and Medicine for Human Health), Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Scott A LongwellDepartment of Bioengineering, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305.
Yaron OrensteinDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer-Sheva, Israel POB 653.
Polly M FordyceDepartment of Genetics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305; pfordyce@stanford.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9505-0638
Stanford University · USBen-Gurion University of the Negev · ILChan Zuckerberg Initiative (United States) · US

Funding

Using Microfluidic Affinity Analysis to Probe Transcriptional RegulationR00GM099848 · NIGMS · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI FORDYCE, POLLY MORRELL · 2015 to 2017
$747k
NIGMS NIH HHS R00 GM099848
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Transcription factors (TFs) are primary regulators of gene expression in cells, where they bind specific genomic target sites to control transcription. Quantitative measurements of TF-DNA binding energies can improve the accuracy of predictions of TF occupancy and downstream gene expression in vivo and shed light on how transcriptional networks are rewired throughout evolution. Here, we present a sequencing-based TF binding assay and analysis pipeline (BET-seq, for Binding Energy Topography by sequencing) capable of providing quantitative estimates of binding energies for more than one million DNA sequences in parallel at high energetic resolution. Using this platform, we measured the binding energies associated with all possible combinations of 10 nucleotides flanking the known consensus DNA target interacting with two model yeast TFs, Pho4 and Cbf1. A large fraction of these flanking mutations change overall binding energies by an amount equal to or greater than consensus site mutations, suggesting that current definitions of TF binding sites may be too restrictive. By systematically comparing estimates of binding energies output by deep neural networks (NNs) and biophysical models trained on these data, we establish that dinucleotide (DN) specificities are sufficient to explain essentially all variance in observed binding behavior, with Cbf1 binding exhibiting significantly more nonadditivity than Pho4. NN-derived binding energies agree with orthogonal biochemical measurements and reveal that dynamically occupied sites in vivo are both energetically and mutationally distant from the highest affinity sites.

Indexed as

Base SequenceBasic Helix-Loop-Helix Leucine Zipper Transcription FactorsBinding SitesComputer SimulationDNADNA-Binding ProteinsE-Box ElementsGene LibraryHigh-Throughput Nucleotide SequencingMicrofluidic Analytical TechniquesMonte Carlo MethodProtein BindingSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsSequence Analysis, DNAThermodynamicsTranscription FactorsBasic Helix-Loop-Helix Leucine Zipper Transcription FactorsCBF1 protein, S cerevisiaeDNADNA-Binding ProteinsPHO4 protein, S cerevisiaeSaccharomyces cerevisiae ProteinsTranscription Factorsmicrofluidicsprotein–DNA bindingtranscriptional regulationtranscription factor bindingtranscription factor specificity

Identifiers

PMID29588420
PMCPMC5910820
OpenAlexW2759983049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.