Identification of cis-regulatory modules in promoters of human genes exploiting mutual positioning of transcription factors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In higher organisms, gene regulation is controlled by the interplay of non-random combinations of multiple transcription factors (TFs). Although numerous attempts have been made to identify these combinations, important details, such as mutual positioning of the factors that have an important role in the TF interplay, are still missing. The goal of the present work is in silico mapping of some of such associating factors based on their mutual positioning, using computational screening. We have selected the process of myogenesis as a study case, and we focused on TF combinations involving master myogenic TF Myogenic differentiation (MyoD) with other factors situated at specific distances from it. The results of our work show that some muscle-specific factors occur together with MyoD within the range of ±100 bp in a large number of promoters. We confirm co-occurrence of the MyoD with muscle-specific factors as described in earlier studies. However, we have also found novel relationships of MyoD with other factors not specific for muscle. Additionally, we have observed that MyoD tends to associate with different factors in proximal and distal promoter areas. The major outcome of our study is establishing the genome-wide connection between biological interactions of TFs and close co-occurrence of their binding sites.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".