Joint sequence & chromatin neural networks characterize the differential abilities of Forkhead transcription factors to engage inaccessible chromatin
Arora, S.; Yang, J.; Akiyama, T.; James, D.; Morrissey, A.; Blanda, T.; Badjatia, N.; Lai, W. K. M.; Ko, M. S. H.; Pugh, B. F.; Mahony, S.
Show abstract
The DNA-binding activities of transcription factors (TFs) are influenced by both intrinsic sequence preferences and extrinsic interactions with cell-specific chromatin landscapes and other regulatory proteins. Disentangling the roles of these binding determinants remains challenging. For example, the FoxA subfamily of Forkhead domain (Fox) TFs are known pioneer factors that can bind to relatively inaccessible sites during development. Yet FoxA TF binding also varies across cell types, pointing to a combination of intrinsic and extrinsic forces guiding their binding. While other Forkhead domain TFs are often assumed to have pioneering abilities, how sequence and chromatin features influence the binding of related Fox TFs has not been systematically characterized. Here, we present a principled approach to compare the relative contributions of intrinsic DNA sequence preference and cell-specific chromatin environments to a TFs DNA-binding activities. We apply our approach to investigate how a selection of Fox TFs (FoxA1, FoxC1, FoxG1, FoxL2, and FoxP3) vary in their binding specificity. We over-express the selected Fox TFs in mouse embryonic stem cells, which offer a platform to contrast each TFs binding activity within the same preexisting chromatin background. By applying a convolutional neural network to interpret the Fox TF binding patterns, we evaluate how sequence and preexisting chromatin features jointly contribute to induced TF binding. We demonstrate that Fox TFs bind different DNA targets, and drive differential gene expression patterns, even when induced in identical chromatin settings. Despite the association between Forkhead domains and pioneering activities, the selected Fox TFs display a wide range of affinities for preexiting chromatin states. Using sequence and chromatin feature attribution techniques to interpret the neural network predictions, we show that differential sequence preferences combined with differential abilities to engage relatively inaccessible chromatin together explain Fox TF binding patterns at individual sites and genome-wide.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A base-resolution panorama of the in vivo impact of cytosine methylation on transcription factor binding 97%
- Integrative epigenomic and functional characterization assay based annotation of regulatory activity across diverse human cell types 97%
- Universal chromatin state annotation of the mouse genome 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Phylogenetic modeling of enhancer shifts in African mole-rats reveals regulatory changes associated with tissue-specific traits 96%
- Leopard: fast decoding cell type-specific transcription factor binding landscape at single-nucleotide resolution 95%
- Neuron-specific chromatin disruption at CpG islands and aging-related regions in Kabuki syndrome mice 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Identification of transcription factor co-binding patterns with non-negative matrix factorization 96%
- Leveraging three-dimensional chromatin architecture for effective reconstruction of enhancer-target gene regulatory network 96%
- Inferring cell diversity in single cell data using consortium-scale epigenetic data as a biological anchor for cell identity 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Massively parallel reporter perturbation assay uncovers temporal regulatory architecture during neural differentiation 95%
- Transposable elements mediate genetic effects altering the expression of nearby genes in colorectal cancer 95%
- Histone H3.3 lysine 9 and 27 control repressive chromatin states at cryptic cis-regulatory elements and bivalent promoters in mouse embryonic stem cells 95%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.