Cell Type Specific DNA Signatures of Transcription Factor Binding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Transcription factors (TFs) bind to different parts of the genome in different types of cells. These differences may be due to alterations in the DNA-binding preferences of a TF itself, or mechanisms such as chromatin accessibility, steric hindrance, or competitive binding, that result in a DNA “signature” of differential binding. We propose a method called SigTFB (Signatures of TF Binding), based on deep learning, to detect and quantify cell type specificity in a TF’s DNA-binding signature. We conduct a wide scale investigation of 194 distinct TFs across various cell types. We demonstrate the existence of cell type specificity in approximately 30% of the TFs. We stratify our analysis by different antibodies for the same TF, to rule out the possibility of certain technical artifacts, yet we find that cell type specificity estimates are largely consistent when the same TF is assayed with different antibodies. To further explain the biology behind a TF’s cell type specificity, or lack thereof, we conduct a wide scale motif enrichment analysis of all TFs in question. We show that the presence of alternate motifs correlates with a higher degree of cell type specificity in TFs, such as ATF7, while finding consistent motifs throughout is usually associated with the absence of cell type specificity in a TF, such as CTCF. In particular, we observe that several important TFs show distinct DNA binding signatures in different cancer cell types, which may point to important differences in modes of action. Moreover, we find that motif enrichment sometimes correlates with gene expression in TFs with higher cell type specificity. Our comprehensive investigation provides a basis for further study of the mechanisms behind differences in TF-DNA binding in different cell types.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".