Cargando…

Relationship between histone modifications and transcription factor binding is protein family specific

The very small fraction of putative binding sites (BSs) that are occupied by transcription factors (TFs) in vivo can be highly variable across different cell types. This observation has been partly attributed to changes in chromatin accessibility and histone modification (HM) patterns surrounding BS...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Xin, Beibei, Rohs, Remo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5848611/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29326300
http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/gr.220079.116
Descripción
Sumario:The very small fraction of putative binding sites (BSs) that are occupied by transcription factors (TFs) in vivo can be highly variable across different cell types. This observation has been partly attributed to changes in chromatin accessibility and histone modification (HM) patterns surrounding BSs. Previous studies focusing on BSs within DNA regulatory regions found correlations between HM patterns and TF binding specificities. However, a mechanistic understanding of TF–DNA binding specificity determinants is still not available. The ability to predict in vivo TF binding on a genome-wide scale requires the identification of features that determine TF binding based on evolutionary relationships of DNA binding proteins. To reveal protein family–dependent mechanisms of TF binding, we conducted comprehensive comparisons of HM patterns surrounding BSs and non-BSs with exactly matched core motifs for TFs in three cell lines: 33 TFs in GM12878, 37 TFs in K562, and 18 TFs in H1-hESC. These TFs displayed protein family–specific preferences for HM patterns surrounding BSs, with high agreement among cell lines. Moreover, compared to models based on DNA sequence and shape at flanking regions of BSs, HM-augmented quantitative machine-learning methods resulted in increased performance in a TF family–specific manner. Analysis of the relative importance of features in these models indicated that TFs, displaying larger HM pattern differences between BSs and non-BSs, bound DNA in an HM-specific manner on a protein family–specific basis. We propose that TF family–specific HM preferences reveal distinct mechanisms that assist in guiding TFs to their cognate BSs by altering chromatin structure and accessibility.