Geschmack ist vorhersagbar: Mit FlavorMiner. FlavorMiner heißt das Tool, das IPB-Chemiker und Partner aus Kolumbien jüngst entwickelt haben. Das Programm kann, basierend auf maschinellem Lernen (KI), anhand der…
Seit Februar 2021 bietet Wolfgang Brandt, ehemaliger Leiter der Arbeitsgruppe Computerchemie am IPB, sein Citizen Science-Projekt zur Pilzbestimmung an. Dafür hat er in regelmäßigen Abständen öffentliche Vorträge zur Vielfalt…
BackgroundTranscriptional gene regulation is a fundamental process in nature, and the experimental and computational investigation of DNA binding motifs and their binding sites is a prerequisite for elucidating this process. Approaches for de-novo motif discovery can be subdivided in phylogenetic footprinting that takes into account phylogenetic dependencies in aligned sequences of more than one species and non-phylogenetic approaches based on sequences from only one species that typically take into account intra-motif dependencies. It has been shown that modeling (i) phylogenetic dependencies as well as (ii) intra-motif dependencies separately improves de-novo motif discovery, but there is no approach capable of modeling both (i) and (ii) simultaneously.ResultsHere, we present an approach for de-novo motif discovery that combines phylogenetic footprinting with motif models capable of taking into account intra-motif dependencies. We study the degree of intra-motif dependencies inferred by this approach from ChIP-seq data of 35 transcription factors. We find that significant intra-motif dependencies of orders 1 and 2 are present in all 35 datasets and that intra-motif dependencies of order 2 are typically stronger than those of order 1. We also find that the presented approach improves the classification performance of phylogenetic footprinting in all 35 datasets and that incorporating intra-motif dependencies of order 2 yields a higher classification performance than incorporating such dependencies of only order 1.ConclusionCombining phylogenetic footprinting with motif models incorporating intra-motif dependencies leads to an improved performance in the classification of transcription factor binding sites. This may advance our understanding of transcriptional gene regulation and its evolution.
Publikation
Nettling, M.; Treutler, H.; Grau, J.; Keilwagen, J.; Posch, S.; Grosse, I.;DiffLogo: a comparative visualization of sequence motifsBMC Bioinformatics16387(2015)DOI: 10.1186/s12859-015-0767-x
BackgroundFor three decades, sequence logos are the de facto standard for the visualization of sequence motifs in biology and bioinformatics. Reasons for this success story are their simplicity and clarity. The number of inferred and published motifs grows with the number of data sets and motif extraction algorithms. Hence, it becomes more and more important to perceive differences between motifs. However, motif differences are hard to detect from individual sequence logos in case of multiple motifs for one transcription factor, highly similar binding motifs of different transcription factors, or multiple motifs for one protein domain.ResultsHere, we present DiffLogo, a freely available, extensible, and user-friendly R package for visualizing motif differences. DiffLogo is capable of showing differences between DNA motifs as well as protein motifs in a pair-wise manner resulting in publication-ready figures. In case of more than two motifs, DiffLogo is capable of visualizing pair-wise differences in a tabular form. Here, the motifs are ordered by similarity, and the difference logos are colored for clarity. We demonstrate the benefit of DiffLogo on CTCF motifs from different human cell lines, on E-box motifs of three basic helix-loop-helix transcription factors as examples for comparison of DNA motifs, and on F-box domains from three different families as example for comparison of protein motifs.ConclusionsDiffLogo provides an intuitive visualization of motif differences. It enables the illustration and investigation of differences between highly similar motifs such as binding patterns of transcription factors for different cell types, treatments, and algorithmic approaches.