4.7 Article

Leveraging chromatin accessibility for transcriptional regulatory network inference in T Helper 17 Cells

期刊

GENOME RESEARCH
卷 29, 期 3, 页码 449-463

出版社

COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB PRESS, PUBLICATIONS DEPT
DOI: 10.1101/gr.238253.118

关键词

-

资金

  1. Cincinnati Children's Research Foundation
  2. Simons Foundation
  3. U.S. National Institutes of Health [5T32AI100853, R01-DK103358-01, R01-GM112192-01, T32 CA009161]
  4. Howard Hughes Medical Institute
  5. Colton Center for Autoimmunity
  6. Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America
  7. Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation
  8. Laura and Isaac Perlmutter Cancer Center [P30CA016087]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Transcriptional regulatory networks (TRNs) provide insight into cellular behavior by describing interactions between transcription factors (TFs) and their gene targets. The assay for transposase-accessible chromatin (ATAC)-seq, coupled with TF motif analysis, provides indirect evidence of chromatin binding for hundreds of TFs genome-wide. Here, we propose methods for TRN inference in a mammalian setting, using ATAC-seq data to improve gene expression modeling. We test our methods in the context of T Helper Cell Type 17 (Th17) differentiation, generating new ATAC-seq data to complement existing Th17 genomic resources. In this resource-rich mammalian setting, our extensive benchmarking provides quantitative, genome-scale evaluation of TRN inference, combining ATAC-seq and RNA-seq data. We refine and extend our previous Th17 TRN, using our new TRN inference methods to integrate all Th17 data (gene expression, ATAC-seq, TF knockouts, and ChIP-seq). We highlight newly discovered roles for individual TFs and groups of TFs (TF-TF modules) in Th17 gene regulation. Given the popularity of ATAC-seq, which provides high-resolution with low sample input requirements, we anticipate that our methods will improve TRN inference in new mammalian systems, especially in vivo, for cells directly from humans and animal models.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据