Back

Interactome Specialization Predicts Genome-Wide Binding-Site Degeneracy in Drosophila melanogaster Transcription Factors

Ponnambalam, A.; Venkiteswaran Pottore, K.

2026-07-11 genomics
10.64898/2026.07.08.737203 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Transcription factors (TFs) recognize short, degenerate DNA motifs that occur thousands of times throughout the genome, implying that binding specificity depends not only on DNA sequence but also on cellular context, including selective protein-protein interactions. Here, we tested whether a TFs integration into the physical TF interaction network predicts the degeneracy of its DNA-binding motif. Using 279 Drosophila melanogaster TFs with matched JASPAR position weight matrices, FlyBase expression profiles, and a physical protein interaction network derived from STRING v12.0 using only experimental and curated-database evidence, we quantified each TFs TF-module fraction. We compared it with genome-wide predicted binding-site density across an independently constructed 18 Mb genomic sample.TF module fraction showed a significant positive association with binding-site density (partial r = 0.379, P = 5.6e-11)after controlling for motif information content, network degree, and literature bias. The relationship remained significant after excluding the homeodomain family, adding motif architecture controls, and applying multiple robustness analyses, including family-cluster bootstrapping and outlier-resistant correlation tests. Consistent with these findings, TFs formed a highly interconnected physical interaction network far exceeding degree-matched random expectation. Together, these results support a model in which DNA-recognition specificity and protein-interaction specificity represent complementary components of TF targeting: TFs embedded within TF-rich interaction modules tend to possess more degenerate DNA-binding motifs, whereas broadly acting network-generalist TFs rely on more information-rich sequence recognition. We also identify and correct a motif-length-dependent thresholding artifact that can obscure this relationship in genome-wide motif analyses.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Genome Research
468 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
10.8%
2
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 17%
10.8%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1863 papers in training set
Top 5%
7.1%
4
Nucleic Acids Research
1281 papers in training set
Top 3%
6.6%
5
GENETICS
483 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
6
Molecular Biology and Evolution
542 papers in training set
Top 1%
5.4%
7
NAR Genomics and Bioinformatics
242 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
Epigenetics & Chromatin
10 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
3.9%
9
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.9%
10
eLife
5828 papers in training set
Top 30%
3.9%
11
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.2%
12
Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal
242 papers in training set
Top 2%
3.1%
13
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
2444 papers in training set
Top 19%
3.0%
14
Cell Reports
1498 papers in training set
Top 14%
2.7%
15
Genome Biology
637 papers in training set
Top 4%
2.4%
16
Genome Biology and Evolution
338 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
17
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.9%
18
Communications Biology
993 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.5%
19
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.1%
20
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 10%
1.1%
21
BMC Biology
265 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
22
Nature Genetics
286 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Bioinformatics
1204 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.6%
24
Science Advances
1243 papers in training set
Top 34%
0.6%
25
Nature Structural & Molecular Biology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%