2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiolchem.2016.04.008
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Hidden heterogeneity of transcription factor binding sites: A case study of SF-1

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 76 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…physiological, pathological or adaptive) [ 20 22 ]. The benefits of GO term enrichment analysis for functional characterization of gene sets have been demonstrated in our previous publications [ 23 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…physiological, pathological or adaptive) [ 20 22 ]. The benefits of GO term enrichment analysis for functional characterization of gene sets have been demonstrated in our previous publications [ 23 26 ].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The computer methods for recognition of TFBSs in DNA sequences are free of this disadvantage but yet ineffective in detection of both TFBSs and the SNPs changing these sites without the cooperation with omics experiments. The objective reasons here are a high degeneracy of the regulatory DNA code [ 15 , 109 , 181 , 182 ]; high importance of low-affinity sites in gene regulation [ 183 ]; the presence of structural variants of the binding sites for the same TF [ 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 ]; and even nonconsensus TFBSs [ 188 , 189 ]. All these facts considerably decrease the efficacy of the available methods for TFBS recognition, most of which are based on the PWM model, which oversimplifies the mechanisms underlying TF–DNA interaction [ 66 , 68 , 69 , 70 ].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The benefits of using the ontological and pathway analyses for functional annotation of group of genes revealed by different criteria have been considered in numerous publications [38, 61, 62]…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%