Clustered, information-dense transcription factor binding sites identify genes with similar tissue-wide expression profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background The distribution and composition of cis -regulatory modules (e.g. transcription factor binding site (TFBS) clusters) in promoters substantially determine gene expression patterns and TF targets, whose expression levels are significantly regulated by TF binding. TF knockdown experiments have revealed correlations between TF binding profiles and gene expression levels. We present a general framework capable of predicting genes with similar tissue-wide expression patterns from activated or repressed TF targets using machine learning to combine TF binding and epigenetic features. Methods Genes with correlated expression patterns across 53 tissues were identified according to their Bray-Curtis similarity. DNase I HyperSensitive region (DHS) -accessible promoter intervals of direct TF target genes were scanned with previously derived information theory-based position weight matrices (iPWMs) of 82 TFs. Features from information density-based TFBS clusters were used to predict target genes with machine learning classifiers. The accuracy, specificity and sensitivity of the classifiers were determined for different feature sets. Mutations in TFBSs were also introduced to examine their impact on cluster densities and the regulatory states of predicted target genes. Results We initially chose the glucocorticoid receptor gene ( NR3C1 ), whose regulation has been extensively studied, to test this approach. SLC25A32 and TANK were found to exhibit the most similar expression patterns to this gene across 53 tissues. Prediction of other genes with similar expression profiles was significantly improved by eliminating inaccessible promoter intervals based on DHSs. A Random Forest classifier exhibited the best performance in detecting such coordinately regulated genes (accuracy was 0.972 for training, 0.976 for testing). Target gene prediction was confirmed using CRISPR knockdown data of TFs, which was more accurate than siRNA inactivation. Mutation analyses of TFBSs also revealed that one or more information-dense TFBS clusters in promoters are required for accurate target gene prediction. Conclusions Machine learning based on TFBS information density, organization, and chromatin accessibility accurately identifies gene targets with comparable tissue-wide expression patterns. Multiple, information-dense TFBS clusters in promoters appear to protect promoters from the effects of deleterious binding site mutations in a single TFBS that would effectively alter the expression state of these genes.
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".