ArticleBMC bioinformatics2022
Modeling binding specificities of transcription factor pairs with random forests.
Article in BMC bioinformatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- JASPAR 2026: expansion of transcription factor binding profiles and integration of deep learning models.Nucleic acids research · 2026Article
- Promoter Motif Profiling and Binding Site Distribution Analysis of Transcription Factors Predict Auto- and Cross-Regulatory Mechanisms inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Identification of co-localised transcription factors based on paired motifs analysis.IET systems biology · 2024Article
- MLSNet: a deep learning model for predicting transcription factor binding sites.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTranscription factors (TFs) bind regulatory DNA regions with sequence specificity, form complexes and regulate gene expression. In cooperative TF-TF binding, two transcription factors bind onto a shared DNA binding site as a pair. Previous work has demonstrated pairwise TF-TF-DNA interactions with position weight matrices (PWMs), which may however not sufficiently take into account the complexity and flexibility of pairwise binding.
resultsWe propose two random forest (RF) methods for joint TF-TF binding site prediction: ComBind and JointRF. We train models with previously published large-scale CAP-SELEX DNA libraries, which comprise DNA sequences enriched for binding of a selected TF pair. JointRF builds a random forest with sub-sequences selected from CAP-SELEX DNA reads with previously proposed pairwise PWM. JointRF outperforms (area under receiver operating characteristics curve, AUROC, 0.75) the current state-of-the-art method i.e. orientation and spacing specific pairwise PWMs (AUROC 0.59). Thus, JointRF may be utilized to improve prediction accuracy for pre-determined binding preferences. However, pairwise TF binding is currently considered flexible; a pair may bind DNA with different orientations and amounts of dinucleotide gaps or overlap between the two motifs. Thus, we developed ComBind, which utilizes random forests by considering simultaneously multiple orientations and spacings of the two factors. Our approach outperforms (AUROC 0.78) PWMs, as well as JointRF (p<0.00195). ComBind provides an approach for predicting TF-TF binding sites without prior knowledge on pairwise binding preferences. However, more research is needed to assess ComBind eligibility for practical applications.
conclusionsRandom forest is well suited for modeling pairwise TF-TF-DNA binding specificities, and ComBind provides an improvement to pairwise binding site prediction accuracy.
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.