ArticlePloS one2018
Modelling of the breadth of expression from promoter architectures identifies pro-housekeeping transcription factors.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Virtual Gene Concept and a Corresponding Pragmatic Research Program in Genetical Data Science.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Models of the Gene Must Inform Data-Mining Strategies in Genomics.Entropy (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Understanding how regulatory elements control mammalian gene expression is a challenge of post-genomic era. We previously reported that size of proximal promoter architecture predicted the breadth of expression (fraction of tissues in which a gene is expressed). Herein, the contributions of individual transcription factors (TFs) were quantified. Several technologies of statistical modelling were utilized and compared: tree models, generalized linear models (GLMs, without and with regularization), Bayesian GLMs and random forest. Both linear and non-linear modelling strategies were explored. Encouragingly, different models led to similar statistical conclusions and biological interpretations. The majority of ENCODE TFs correlated positively with housekeeping expression, a minority correlated negatively. Thus, housekeeping expression can be understood as a cumulative effect of many types of TF binding sites. This is accompanied by the exclusion of fewer types of binding sites for TFs which are repressors, or support cell lineage commitment or temporarily inducible or spatially-restricted expression.
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.