Interplay between chromatin state, regulator binding, and regulatory motifs in six human cell types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The regions bound by sequence-specific transcription factors can be highly variable across different cell types despite the static nature of the underlying genome sequence. This has been partly attributed to changes in chromatin accessibility, but a systematic picture has been hindered by the lack of large-scale data sets. Here, we use 456 binding experiments for 119 regulators and 84 chromatin maps generated by the ENCODE in six human cell types, and relate those to a global map of regulatory motif instances for these factors. We find specific and robust chromatin state preferences for each regulator beyond the previously reported open-chromatin association, suggesting a much richer chromatin landscape beyond simple accessibility. The preferentially bound chromatin states of regulators were enriched for sequence motifs of regulators relative to all states, suggesting that these preferences are at least partly encoded by the genomic sequence. Relative to all regions bound by a regulator, however, regulatory motifs were surprisingly depleted in the regulator's preferentially bound states, suggesting additional non-sequence-specific binding beyond the level predicted by the regulatory motifs. Such permissive binding was largely restricted to open-chromatin regions showing histone modification marks characteristic of active enhancer and promoter regions, whereas open-chromatin regions lacking such marks did not show permissive binding. Lastly, the vast majority of cobinding of regulator pairs is predicted by the chromatin state preferences of individual regulators. Overall, our results suggest a joint role of sequence motifs and specific chromatin states beyond mere accessibility in mediating regulator binding dynamics across different cell types.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".