Dynamic motif occupancy (DynaMO) analysis identifies transcription factors and their binding sites driving dynamic biological processes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biological processes are usually associated with genome-wide remodeling of transcription driven by transcription factors (TFs). Identifying key TFs and their spatiotemporal binding patterns are indispensable to understanding how dynamic processes are programmed. However, most methods are designed to predict TF binding sites only. We present a computational method, dynamic motif occupancy analysis (DynaMO), to infer important TFs and their spatiotemporal binding activities in dynamic biological processes using chromatin profiling data from multiple biological conditions such as time-course histone modification ChIP-seq data. In the first step, DynaMO predicts TF binding sites with a random forests approach. Next and uniquely, DynaMO infers dynamic TF binding activities at predicted binding sites using their local chromatin profiles from multiple biological conditions. Another landmark of DynaMO is to identify key TFs in a dynamic process using a clustering and enrichment analysis of dynamic TF binding patterns. Application of DynaMO to the yeast ultradian cycle, mouse circadian clock and human neural differentiation exhibits its accuracy and versatility. We anticipate DynaMO will be generally useful for elucidating transcriptional programs in dynamic processes.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".