4.7 Article

Context-dependent DNA recognition code for C2H2 zinc-finger transcription factors

期刊

BIOINFORMATICS
卷 24, 期 17, 页码 1850-1857

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn331

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [HG00249]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Motivation: Modeling and identifying the DNA-protein recognition code is one of the most challenging problems in computational biology. Several quantitative methods have been developed to model DNA-protein interactions with specific focus on the C2H2 zinc-finger proteins, the largest transcription factor family in eukaryotic genomes. In many cases, they performed well. But the overall the predictive accuracy of these methods is still limited. One of the major reasons is all these methods used weight matrix models to represent DNA-protein interactions, assuming all base-amino acid contacts contribute independently to the total free energy of binding. Results: We present a context-dependent model for DNA-zinc-finger protein interactions that allows us to identify inter-positional dependencies in the DNA recognition code for C2H2 zinc-finger proteins. The degree of non-independence was detected by comparing the linear perceptron model with the non-linear neural net (NN) model for their predictions of DNA-zinc-finger protein interactions. This dependency is supported by the complex base-amino acid contacts observed in DNA-zinc-finger interactions from structural analyses. Using extensive published qualitative and quantitative experimental data, we demonstrated that the context-dependent model developed in this study can significantly improves predictions of DNA binding profiles and free energies of binding for both individual zinc fingers and proteins with multiple zinc fingers when comparing to previous positional-independent models. This approach can be extended to other protein families with complex base-amino acid residue interactions that would help to further understand the transcriptional regulation in eukaryotic genomes.

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