ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2026
An atlas of transcription factor cooperation reveals how motif readers shape regulatory output.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Regulatory motifs are conventionally associated with named transcription factors (TFs), yet a motif label need not identify the protein that reads the sequence or the regulatory consequence that follows in a given cell. We analyzed 1,552 TF binding datasets in 10 cell types using ARES, a multi-agent system that tests competing mechanisms of TF-motif dependencies in a specific cellular context against multi-omic data. We found that the inferred mechanisms converged on three operating routes: direct sequence recognition, protein-mediated recruitment or exclusion, and regulatory context. Importantly, the predictive motifs of the target TF binding were read by their conventionally "canonical" TFs in only one third of resolved dependencies, and these "canonical" TFs were expressed much less often than the inferred readers. Furthermore, we observed that motif similarity was associated with shared regulatory region type but not shared transcriptional outcome, whereas reader identity was associated with both and the only feature among the examined associated with outcome. In validation case studies where an inferred reader was perturbed, target TF occupancy fell in proportion to reader binding before perturbation, and a natural variant disrupting the predictive motif altered target TF binding at every intermediate step of the inferred mechanism. These observations were further supported by single-cell perturbation, in vitro cooperativity and evolutionary constraint. Together, these results separate motif identity from reader identity and regulatory output, suggesting that a motif acts as an address whose regulatory consequence is shaped in trans by the protein that interprets it.
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.