Characterising transcription factor binding sites (TFBS) is an important problem in bioinformatics, since predicting binding sites has many applications such as predicting gene regulation. ChIP-seq is a powerful in vivo method for generating genome-wide putative binding regions for transcription factors (TFs). CentriMo is an algorithm that measures central enrichment of a motif and has previously been used as motif enrichment analysis (MEA) tool. CentriMo uses the fact that ChIP-seq peak calling methods are likely to be biased towards the centre of the putative binding region, at least in cases where there is direct binding. CentriMo calculates a binomial p-value representing central enrichment, based on the central bias of the binding site with the highest likelihood ratio. In cases where binding is indirect or involves cofactors, a more complex distribution of preferred binding sites may occur but, in many cases, a low CentriMo p-value and low width of maximum enrichment (about 100bp) are strong evidence that the motif in question is the true binding motif. Several other MEA tools have been developed, but they do not consider motif central enrichment. The study investigates the claim made by Zhao and Stormo (2011) that they have identified a simpler method than that used to derive the UniPROBE motif database for creating motifs from protein binding microarray (PBM) data, which they call BEEML-PBM (Binding Energy Estimation by Maximum Likelihood-PBM). To accomplish this, CentriMo is employed on 13 motifs from both motif databases. The results indicate that there is no conclusive difference in the quality of motifs from the original PBM and BEEML-PBM approaches. CentriMo provides an understanding of the mechanisms by which TFs bind to DNA. Out of 13 TFs for which ChIP-seq data is used, BEEML-PBM reports five better motifs and twice it has not had any central enrichment when the best PBM motif does. PBM approach finds seven motifs with better central enrichment. On the other hand, across all variations, the number of examples where PBM is better is not high enough to conclude that it is overall the better approach. Some TFs bind directly to DNA, some indirect or in combination with other TFs. Some of the predicted mechanisms are supported by literature evidence. This study further revealed that the binding specificity of a TF is different in different cell types and development stages. A TF is up-regulated in a cell line where it performs its biological function. The discovery of cell line differences, which has not been done before in any CentriMo study, is interesting and provides reasons to study this further.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:rhodes/vital:3890 |
| Date | 13 March 2013 |
| Creators | Mahaye, Ntombikayise |
| Publisher | Rhodes University, Faculty of Science, Biochemistry, Microbiology and Biotechnology |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, MSc |
| Format | 96 p., pdf |
| Rights | Mahaye, Ntombikayise |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds