Structure-based learning to model complex protein-DNA interactions and transcription-factor co-operativity in <i>cis</i> -regulatory elements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Transcription factor (TF) binding is a key component of genomic regulation. There are numerous high-throughput experimental methods to characterize TF-DNA binding specificities. Their application, however, is both laborious and expensive, which makes profiling all TFs challenging. For instance, the binding preferences of ~25% human TFs remain unknown; they neither have been determined experimentally nor inferred computationally. We introduce a structure-based learning approach to predict the binding preferences of TFs and the automated modelling of TF regulatory complexes. We show the advantage of using our approach over the state-of-art nearest-neighbor prediction in the limits of remote homology. Starting from a TF sequence or structure, we predict binding preferences in the form of motifs that are then used to scan a DNA sequence for occurrences. The best matches are either profiled with a binding score or collected for their subsequent modeling into a higher-order regulatory complex with DNA. Cooperativity is modelled by: i) the co-localization of TFs; and ii) the structural modeling of protein-protein interactions between TFs and with co-factors. As case examples, we apply our approach to automatically model the interferon-β enhanceosome and the pioneering complex of OCT4, SOX2 and SOX11 with a nucleosome, which are compared with the experimentally known structures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".