↓ Skip to main content

Properly defining the targets of a transcription factor significantly improves the computational identification of cooperative transcription factor pairs in yeast

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Genomics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
5 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
Properly defining the targets of a transcription factor significantly improves the computational identification of cooperative transcription factor pairs in yeast
Published in
BMC Genomics, December 2015
DOI 10.1186/1471-2164-16-s12-s10
Pubmed ID
Authors

Wei-Sheng Wu, Fu-Jou Lai

Abstract

Transcriptional regulation of gene expression in eukaryotes is usually accomplished by cooperative transcription factors (TFs). Computational identification of cooperative TF pairs has become a hot research topic and many algorithms have been proposed in the literature. A typical algorithm for predicting cooperative TF pairs has two steps. (Step 1) Define the targets of each TF under study. (Step 2) Design a measure for calculating the cooperativity of a TF pair based on the targets of these two TFs. While different algorithms have distinct sophisticated cooperativity measures, the targets of a TF are usually defined using ChIP-chip data. However, there is an inherent weakness in using ChIP-chip data to define the targets of a TF. ChIP-chip analysis can only identify the binding targets of a TF but it cannot distinguish the true regulatory from the binding but non-regulatory targets of a TF. This work is the first study which aims to investigate whether the performance of computational identification of cooperative TF pairs could be improved by using a more biologically relevant way to define the targets of a TF. For this purpose, we propose four simple algorithms, all of which consist of two steps. (Step 1) Define the targets of a TF using (i) ChIP-chip data in the first algorithm, (ii) TF binding data in the second algorithm, (iii) TF perturbation data in the third algorithm, and (iv) the intersection of TF binding and TF perturbation data in the fourth algorithm. Compared with the first three algorithms, the fourth algorithm uses a more biologically relevant way to define the targets of a TF. (Step 2) Measure the cooperativity of a TF pair by the statistical significance of the overlap of the targets of these two TFs using the hypergeometric test. By adopting four existing performance indices, we show that the fourth proposed algorithm (PA4) significantly out performs the other three proposed algorithms. This suggests that the computational identification of cooperative TF pairs is indeed improved when using a more biologically relevant way to define the targets of a TF. Strikingly, the prediction results of our simple PA4 are more biologically meaningful than those of the 12 existing sophisticated algorithms in the literature, all of which used ChIP-chip data to define the targets of a TF. This suggests that properly defining the targets of a TF may be more important than designing sophisticated cooperativity measures. In addition, our PA4 has the power to predict several experimentally validated cooperative TF pairs, which have not been successfully predicted by any existing algorithms in the literature. This study shows that the performance of computational identification of cooperative TF pairs could be improved by using a more biologically relevant way to define the targets of a TF. The main contribution of this study is not to propose another new algorithm but to provide a new thinking for the research of computational identification of cooperative TF pairs. Researchers should put more effort on properly defining the targets of a TF (i.e. Step 1) rather than totally focus on designing sophisticated cooperativity measures (i.e. Step 2). The lists of TF target genes, the Matlab codes and the prediction results of the four proposed algorithms could be downloaded from our companion website http://cosbi3.ee.ncku.edu.tw/TFI/.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 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 5 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 5 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 20%
Professor 1 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 1 20%
Student > Master 1 20%
Researcher 1 20%
Other 0 0%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 40%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 20%
Computer Science 1 20%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 19 December 2015.
All research outputs
#14,830,048
of 22,835,198 outputs
Outputs from BMC Genomics
#6,141
of 10,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#216,430
of 389,036 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Genomics
#236
of 342 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,835,198 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,655 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.7. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 389,036 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 342 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.