Identifying transcription factors with cell-type specific DNA binding signatures
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transcription factors (TFs) bind to different parts of the genome in different types of cells, but it is usually assumed that the inherent DNA-binding preferences of a TF are invariant to cell type. Yet, there are several known examples of TFs that switch their DNA-binding preferences in different cell types, and yet more examples of other mechanisms, such as steric hindrance or cooperative binding, that may result in a "DNA signature" of differential binding. RESULTS: To survey this phenomenon systematically, we developed a deep learning method we call SigTFB (Signatures of TF Binding) to detect and quantify cell-type specificity in a TF's known genomic binding sites. We used ENCODE ChIP-seq data to conduct a wide scale investigation of 169 distinct TFs in up to 14 distinct cell types. SigTFB detected statistically significant DNA binding signatures in approximately two-thirds of TFs, far more than might have been expected from the relatively sparse evidence in prior literature. We found that the presence or absence of a cell-type specific DNA binding signature is distinct from, and indeed largely uncorrelated to, the degree of overlap between ChIP-seq peaks in different cell types, and tended to arise by two mechanisms: using established motifs in different frequencies, and by selective inclusion of motifs for distint TFs. CONCLUSIONS: While recent results have highlighted cell state features such as chromatin accessibility and gene expression in predicting TF binding, our results emphasize that, for some TFs, the DNA sequences of the binding sites contain substantial cell-type specific motifs.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".