Virtual ChIP-seq: predicting transcription factor binding by learning from the transcriptome
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Motivation Identifying transcription factor binding sites is the first step in pinpointing non-coding mutations that disrupt the regulatory function of transcription factors and promote disease. ChIP-seq is the most common method for identifying binding sites, but performing it on patient samples is hampered by the amount of available biological material and the cost of the experiment. Existing methods for computational prediction of regulatory elements primarily predict binding in genomic regions with sequence similarity to known transcription factor sequence preferences. This has limited efficacy since most binding sites do not resemble known transcription factor sequence motifs, and many transcription factors are not even sequence-specific. Results We developed Virtual ChIP-seq, which predicts binding of individual transcription factors in new cell types using an artificial neural network that integrates ChIP-seq results from other cell types and chromatin accessibility data in the new cell type. Virtual ChIP-seq also uses learned associations between gene expression and transcription factor binding at specific genomic regions. This approach outperforms methods that predict TF binding solely based on sequence preference, pre-dicting binding for 36 transcription factors (Matthews correlation coefficient > 0.3). Availability The datasets we used for training and validation are available at https://virchip.hoffmanlab.org . We have deposited in Zenodo the current version of our software ( http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1066928 ), datasets ( http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.823297 ), predictions for 36 transcription factors on Roadmap Epigenomics cell types ( http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1455759 ), and predictions in Cistrome as well as ENCODE-DREAM in vivo TF Binding Site Prediction Challenge ( http://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1209308 ).
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".