Cited by 452Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsDevelopmental Biology and Gene RegulationProtein Structure and Dynamics

Analysis of Homeodomain Specificities Allows the Family-wide Prediction of Preferred Recognition Sites

Open access
Noyes, Marcus B., Christensen, Ryan G., Wakabayashi, Atsuya, Stormo, Gary D., Brodsky, Michael H., Wolfe, Scot A.·2008·Cell

Abstract

We describe the comprehensive characterization of homeodomain DNA-binding specificities from a metazoan genome. The analysis of all 84 independent homeodomains from D. melanogaster reveals the breadth of DNA sequences that can be specified by this recognition motif. The majority of these factors can be organized into 11 different specificity groups, where the preferred recognition sequence between these groups can differ at up to four of the six core recognition positions. Analysis of the recognition motifs within these groups led to a catalog of common specificity determinants that may cooperate or compete to define the binding site preference. With these recognition principles, a homeodomain can be reengineered to create factors where its specificity is altered at the majority of recognition positions. This resource also allows prediction of homeodomain specificities from other organisms, which is demonstrated by the prediction and analysis of human homeodomain specificities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cell.2008.05.023

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Motifs for DNA-binding proteins can be highly similar among closely related proteins, allowing accurate inference of motifs.

    “The motifs for DNA-binding proteins can be highly similar for closely related proteins, allowing accurate inference of motifs7,8”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Noyes, M. B., Christensen, R. G., Wakabayashi, A., Stormo, G. D., Brodsky, M. H., & Wolfe, S. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School (US)
  • Washington University in St. Louis (US)
Corresponding author
  • Brodsky, Michael H.
  • Wolfe, Scot A.
Venue
Cell
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-06
Volume
133
Issue
7
Pages
1277-1289
ISSN
0092-8674 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2141354959
Cited by
452
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 27 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 35
FWCI
14.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship@UMassChan (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Human Genome Research Institute (HG00249, R21HG003721, R01HG000249, R01HG002673, HG002673)
  • National Institute of General Medical Sciences (T32GM08802, T32GM008802)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Developmental Biology and Gene Regulation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Protein Structure and Dynamics
Keywords
homeodomain, DNA binding specificity, homeodomain transcription factor, specificity determinants, Drosophila melanogaster, metazoan genomes
MeSH terms
Amino Acid Sequence, Animals, Bacteria, Base Sequence, DNA, Drosophila melanogaster, Humans, Models, Molecular, Phylogeny, Protein Engineering, Protein Structure, Tertiary, Homeodomain Proteins, Two-Hybrid System Techniques, Drosophila Proteins, Genome, Insect

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review