ArticleScientific reports2019
Estimation of Transcription Factor Activity in Knockdown Studies.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A ChIP-exo screen of 887 Protein Capture Reagents Program transcription factor antibodies in human cells.Genome research · 2021Article
- Inferring TF activities and activity regulators from gene expression data with constraints from TF perturbation data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Numerous methods have been developed trying to infer actual regulatory events in a sample. A prominent class of methods model genome-wide gene expression as linear equations derived from a transcription factor (TF) - gene network and optimizes parameters to fit the measured expression intensities. We apply four such methods on experiments with a TF-knockdown (KD) in human and E. coli. The transcriptome data provides clear expression signals and thus represents an extremely favorable test setting. The methods estimate activity changes of all TFs, which we expect to be highest in the KD TF. However, only in 15 out of 54 cases, the KD TFs ranked in the top 5%. We show that this poor overall performance cannot be attributed to a low effectiveness of the knockdown or the specific regulatory network provided as background knowledge. Further, the ranks of regulators related to the KD TF by the network or pathway are not significantly different from a random selection. In general, the result overlaps of different methods are small, indicating that they draw very different conclusions when presented with the same, presumably simple, inference problem. These results show that the investigated methods cannot yield robust TF activity estimates in knockdown schemes.
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.