↓ Skip to main content

Discovery of cell-type specific DNA motif grammar in cis-regulatory elements using random Forest

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (54th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (59th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
18 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Discovery of cell-type specific DNA motif grammar in cis-regulatory elements using random Forest
Published in
BMC Genomics, January 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12864-017-4340-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xin Wang, Peijie Lin, Joshua W. K. Ho

Abstract

It has been observed that many transcription factors (TFs) can bind to different genomic loci depending on the cell type in which a TF is expressed in, even though the individual TF usually binds to the same core motif in different cell types. How a TF can bind to the genome in such a highly cell-type specific manner, is a critical research question. One hypothesis is that a TF requires co-binding of different TFs in different cell types. If this is the case, it may be possible to observe different combinations of TF motifs - a motif grammar - located at the TF binding sites in different cell types. In this study, we develop a bioinformatics method to systematically identify DNA motifs in TF binding sites across multiple cell types based on published ChIP-seq data, and address two questions: (1) can we build a machine learning classifier to predict cell-type specificity based on motif combinations alone, and (2) can we extract meaningful cell-type specific motif grammars from this classifier model. We present a Random Forest (RF) based approach to build a multi-class classifier to predict the cell-type specificity of a TF binding site given its motif content. We applied this RF classifier to two published ChIP-seq datasets of TF (TCF7L2 and MAX) across multiple cell types. Using cross-validation, we show that motif combinations alone are indeed predictive of cell types. Furthermore, we present a rule mining approach to extract the most discriminatory rules in the RF classifier, thus allowing us to discover the underlying cell-type specific motif grammar. Our bioinformatics analysis supports the hypothesis that combinatorial TF motif patterns are cell-type specific.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 19%
Student > Master 6 14%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Researcher 3 7%
Other 7 17%
Unknown 12 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 13 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 10%
Computer Science 3 7%
Engineering 2 5%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Other 4 10%
Unknown 14 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 January 2018.
All research outputs
#12,768,437
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#4,381
of 10,697 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,671
of 441,339 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#83
of 208 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,697 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 58% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,339 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 208 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its contemporaries.