ArticleBMC genomics2024
Identifying transcription factors with cell-type specific DNA binding signatures.
Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Immune-evasive stem cells: engineering tolerance and reprogramming microenvironments for regenerative therapy.Stem cell research & therapy · 2026Review
- Benchmarking transcription factor binding site prediction models: a comparative analysis on synthetic and biological data.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Comprehensive molecular impact mapping of common and rare variants at GWAS loci.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- PROTACs coupled with oligonucleotides to tackle the undruggable.Bioanalysis · 2025Review
- Comparative analysis of models in predicting the effects of SNPs on TF-DNA binding using large-scale in vitro and in vivo data.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
Abstract
backgroundTranscription factors (TFs) bind to different parts of the genome in different types of cells, but it is usually assumed that the inherent DNA-binding preferences of a TF are invariant to cell type. Yet, there are several known examples of TFs that switch their DNA-binding preferences in different cell types, and yet more examples of other mechanisms, such as steric hindrance or cooperative binding, that may result in a "DNA signature" of differential binding.
resultsTo survey this phenomenon systematically, we developed a deep learning method we call SigTFB (Signatures of TF Binding) to detect and quantify cell-type specificity in a TF's known genomic binding sites. We used ENCODE ChIP-seq data to conduct a wide scale investigation of 169 distinct TFs in up to 14 distinct cell types. SigTFB detected statistically significant DNA binding signatures in approximately two-thirds of TFs, far more than might have been expected from the relatively sparse evidence in prior literature. We found that the presence or absence of a cell-type specific DNA binding signature is distinct from, and indeed largely uncorrelated to, the degree of overlap between ChIP-seq peaks in different cell types, and tended to arise by two mechanisms: using established motifs in different frequencies, and by selective inclusion of motifs for distint TFs.
conclusionsWhile recent results have highlighted cell state features such as chromatin accessibility and gene expression in predicting TF binding, our results emphasize that, for some TFs, the DNA sequences of the binding sites contain substantial cell-type specific motifs.
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.