Prediction of Cell Type Specific Transcription Factor Binding Site Occupancy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We propose a. machine learning approach to predict the particular cell type where a given transcription factor can bind a DNA sequence. The learning models are trained on the DNA sequences provided from the publicly available ChIPseq experiments of the ENCODE project for 52 transcription factors across the GM12878, K562, HeLa, H1-hESC and HepG2 cell lines. Three different feature extraction methods are used based on k-mer representations, counts of known motifs, and a new model called the skip gram model, which has become very popular in the analysis of text. The logistic regression with ℓ1 penalty is used for the classification task. We find that predictors based on known motifs counts detect cell-type specific signatures better than a previously published method, with mean AUC improvement of 0.18 and can be used to identify t he interaction of transcription factors. Remarkably, the skip gram approach, which can be used without of any prior knowledge about transcription factor binding sit es, performs almost as well as the motif-based method. Overall, our family of predictors will be useful to both better predict cell-type specific TF occupancy and understand the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon.
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".