2005
DOI: 10.1128/mcb.25.22.10148-10158.2005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation-Based Screen To Identify Functional Genomic Binding Sites for Sequence-Specific Transactivators

Abstract: In various human diseases, altered gene expression patterns are often the result of deregulated gene-specific transcription factor activity. To further understand disease on a molecular basis, the comprehensive analysis of transcription factor signaling networks is required. We developed an experimental approach, combining chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) with a yeast-based assay, to screen the genome for transcription factor binding sites that link to transcriptionally regulated target genes. We used the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

4
51
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 47 publications
(56 citation statements)
references
References 75 publications
4
51
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The overlapping sites tended to be the strongest binding sites in both studies (28% of PET3 clusters and 52% of PET5 clusters overlapped with high-confidence ChIP-seq peaks, Table S7A). Similarly, ChIP-seq peaks with height of 31-50 were more likely to overlap with PET3 + clusters than peaks with height of [16][17][18][19][20] (Table S7B). Greater overlap between the higher ranked sites is expected in genome-wide studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The overlapping sites tended to be the strongest binding sites in both studies (28% of PET3 clusters and 52% of PET5 clusters overlapped with high-confidence ChIP-seq peaks, Table S7A). Similarly, ChIP-seq peaks with height of 31-50 were more likely to overlap with PET3 + clusters than peaks with height of [16][17][18][19][20] (Table S7B). Greater overlap between the higher ranked sites is expected in genome-wide studies.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…3,17 Recent advances in sequencing technologies combined with chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) have lead to the identification of thousands of p53 binding sites, providing unmatched opportunities for analysis and comparison of the global genomic p53 binding pattern under different experimental conditions. Notably, all de novo p53 binding studies published to date [18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] have used cancer-derived cell lines. Binding of transcription factors (TF) to DNA is known to be context-dependent, governed in vivo by chromatin architecture and epigenetic modifications, 26 and these are subjected to major changes during tumor development.…”
Section: Distinct P53 Genomic Binding Patterns In Normal and Cancer-dmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…qRT-PCR HMEC transduction, mRNA preparation and subsequent qRT-PCR studies were carried out as described previously (Hearnes et al, 2005). Primers are listed in Supplementary Table 6.…”
Section: Microarraysmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…HMECs were cultured in the presence or absence of 350 nM ADR for 6 h and chromatin was prepared as described previously (Hearnes et al, 2005). The ChIP and qRT-PCR primers are described in Supplementary Table 6.…”
Section: Chipmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This indicates that there may be other more divergent p53 binding sites in the promoter that mediate repression. Others have noted that the p53 response elements involved in transcriptional repression do not fit the consensus as well as those involved in activation [3,37].…”
Section: P53 Represses the Hnf4α P1 Promoter Through Multiple Mechanismsmentioning
confidence: 99%