ArticleBMC genomics2023
Transcription factor-binding k-mer analysis clarifies the cell type dependency of binding specificities and cis-regulatory SNPs in humans.
Article in BMC genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Unmeasured human transcription factor ChIP-seq data shape functional genomics and demand strategic prioritization.Briefings in functional genomics · 2025Article
- CGSDA: inferring snoRNA-disease associations via ChebNetII and GatedGCN.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTranscription 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.
resultsHere, 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.
conclusionsOur 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.