Characterizing the targets of transcription regulators by aggregating ChIP-seq and perturbation expression data sets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Mapping the gene targets of chromatin-associated transcription regulators (TRs) is a major goal of genomics research. ChIP-seq of TRs and experiments that perturb a TR and measure the differential abundance of gene transcripts are a primary means by which direct relationships are tested on a genomic scale. It has been reported that there is poor overlap in the evidence across gene regulation strategies, emphasizing the need for integrating results from multiple experiments. While research consortia interested in gene regulation have produced a valuable trove of high-quality data, there is an even greater volume of TR-specific data throughout the literature. In this study, we demonstrate a workflow for the identification, uniform processing, and aggregation of ChIP-seq and TR perturbation experiments for the ultimate purpose of ranking human and mouse TR-target interactions. Focusing on an initial set of eight regulators (ASCL1, HES1, MECP2, MEF2C, NEUROD1, PAX6, RUNX1, and TCF4), we identified 497 experiments suitable for analysis. We used this corpus to examine data concordance, to identify systematic patterns of the two data types, and to identify putative orthologous interactions between human and mouse. We build upon commonly used strategies to forward a procedure for aggregating and combining these two genomic methodologies, assessing these rankings against independent literature-curated evidence. Beyond a framework extensible to other TRs, our work also provides empirically ranked TR-target listings, as well as transparent experiment-level gene summaries for community use.
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".