Transcription factor-binding k-mer analysis clarifies the cell type dependency of binding specificities and cis-regulatory SNPs in humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcription factors (TFs) exhibit heterogeneous DNA-binding specificities in individual cells and whole organisms under natural conditions, and de novo motif discovery usually provides multiple motifs, even from a single chromatin immunoprecipitation-sequencing (ChIP-seq) sample. Despite the accumulation of ChIP-seq data and ChIP-seq-derived motifs, the diversity of DNA-binding specificities across different TFs and cell types remains largely unexplored. RESULTS: Here, we applied MOCCS2, our k-mer-based motif discovery method, to a collection of human TF ChIP-seq samples across diverse TFs and cell types, and systematically computed profiles of TF-binding specificity scores for all k-mers. After quality control, we compiled a set of TF-binding specificity score profiles for 2,976 high-quality ChIP-seq samples, comprising 473 TFs and 398 cell types. Using these high-quality samples, we confirmed that the k-mer-based TF-binding specificity profiles reflected TF- or TF-family dependent DNA-binding specificities. We then compared the binding specificity scores of ChIP-seq samples with the same TFs but with different cell type classes and found that half of the analyzed TFs exhibited differences in DNA-binding specificities across cell type classes. Additionally, we devised a method to detect differentially bound k-mers between two ChIP-seq samples and detected k-mers exhibiting statistically significant differences in binding specificity scores. Moreover, we demonstrated that differences in the binding specificity scores between k-mers on the reference and alternative alleles could be used to predict the effect of variants on TF binding, as validated by in vitro and in vivo assay datasets. Finally, we demonstrated that binding specificity score differences can be used to interpret disease-associated non-coding single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) as TF-affecting SNPs and provide candidates responsible for TFs and cell types. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides a basis for investigating the regulation of gene expression in a TF-, TF family-, or cell-type-dependent manner. Furthermore, our differential analysis of binding-specificity scores highlights noncoding disease-associated variants in humans.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".