ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2022
Predicting which genes will respond to transcription factor perturbations.
Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Mapping the transcriptional regulatory network of a fungal pathogen by exploiting transcription factor perturbation.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Optimized reporters for multiplexed detection of transcription factor activity.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
The ability to predict which genes will respond to the perturbation of a transcription factor serves as a benchmark for our systems-level understanding of transcriptional regulatory networks. In previous work, machine learning models have been trained to predict static gene expression levels in a biological sample by using data from the same or similar samples, including data on their transcription factor binding locations, histone marks, or DNA sequence. We report on a different challenge-training machine learning models to predict which genes will respond to the perturbation of a transcription factor without using any data from the perturbed cells. We find that existing transcription factor location data (ChIP-seq) from human cells have very little detectable utility for predicting which genes will respond to perturbation of a transcription factor. Features of genes, including their preperturbation expression level and expression variation, are very useful for predicting responses to perturbation of any transcription factor. This shows that some genes are poised to respond to transcription factor perturbations and others are resistant, shedding light on why it has been so difficult to predict responses from binding locations. Certain histone marks, including H3K4me1 and H3K4me3, have some predictive power when located downstream of the transcription start site. However, the predictive power of histone marks is much less than that of gene expression level and expression variation. Sequence-based or epigenetic properties of genes strongly influence their tendency to respond to direct transcription factor perturbations, partially explaining the oft-noted difficulty of predicting responsiveness from transcription factor binding location data. These molecular features are largely reflected in and summarized by the gene's expression level and expression variation. Code is available at https://github.com/BrentLab/TFPertRespExplainer.
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.