4.8 Article

Consensus by democracy. Using meta-analyses of microarray and genomic data to model the cold acclimation signaling pathway in Arabidopsis

期刊

PLANT PHYSIOLOGY
卷 141, 期 4, 页码 1219-1232

出版社

AMER SOC PLANT BIOLOGISTS
DOI: 10.1104/pp.106.083527

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The whole-genome response of Arabidopsis ( Arabidopsis thaliana) exposed to different types and durations of abiotic stress has now been described by a wealth of publicly available microarray data. When combined with studies of how gene expression is affected in mutant and transgenic Arabidopsis with altered ability to transduce the low temperature signal, these data can be used to test the interactions between various low temperature-associated transcription factors and their regulons. We quantized a collection of Affymetrix microarray data so that each gene in a particular regulon could vote on whether a cis-element found in its promoter conferred induction ( 11), repression (21), or no transcriptional change (0) during cold stress. By statistically comparing these election results with the voting behavior of all genes on the same gene chip, we verified the bioactivity of novel cis-elements and defined whether they were inductive or repressive. Using in silico mutagenesis we identified functional binding consensus variants for the transcription factors studied. Our results suggest that the previously identified ICEr1 ( induction of CBF expression region 1) consensus does not correlate with cold gene induction, while the ICEr3/ICEr4 consensuses identified using our algorithms are present in regulons of genes that were induced coordinate with observed ICE1 transcript accumulation and temporally preceding genes containing the dehydration response element. Statistical analysis of overlap and cis-element enrichment in the ICE1, CBF2, ZAT12, HOS9, and PHYA regulons enabled us to construct a regulatory network supported by multiple lines of evidence that can be used for future hypothesis testing.

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

4.8
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