Expanding the repertoire of DNA shape features for genome-scale studies of transcription factor binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Uncovering the mechanisms that affect the binding specificity of transcription factors (TFs) is critical for understanding the principles of gene regulation. Although sequence-based models have been used successfully to predict TF binding specificities, we found that including DNA shape information in these models improved their accuracy and interpretability. Previously, we developed a method for modeling DNA binding specificities based on DNA shape features extracted from Monte Carlo (MC) simulations. Prediction accuracies of our models, however, have not yet been compared to accuracies of models incorporating DNA shape information extracted from X-ray crystallography (XRC) data or Molecular Dynamics (MD) simulations. Here, we integrated DNA shape information extracted from MC or MD simulations and XRC data into predictive models of TF binding and compared their performance. Models that incorporated structural information consistently showed improved performance over sequence-based models regardless of data source. Furthermore, we derived and validated nine additional DNA shape features beyond our original set of four features. The expanded repertoire of 13 distinct DNA shape features, including six intra-base pair and six inter-base pair parameters and minor groove width, is available in our R/Bioconductor package DNAshapeR and enables a comprehensive structural description of the double helix on a genome-wide scale.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".