Cited by 128Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerBioinformatics and Genomic Networks

Quantification of Differential Transcription Factor Activity and Multiomics-Based Classification into Activators and Repressors: diffTF

Open access
Berest, Ivan, Arnold, Christian, Reyes-Palomares, Armando, Palla, Giovanni, Rasmussen, Kasper Dindler, Giles, Holly, Bruch, Peter-Martin, Huber, Wolfgang +3 more·2019·Cell Reports

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Transcription factor (TF) activity is an important read-out of cellular signalling pathways and thus to assess regulatory differences across conditions. However, current technologies lack the ability to simultaneously assess activity changes for multiple TFs and in particular to determine whether a specific TF acts globally as transcriptional repressor or activator. To this end, we introduce a widely applicable genome-wide method diffTF to assess differential TF activity and to classify TFs as activator or repressor (available at https://git.embl.de/grp-zaugg/diffTF ). This is done by integrating any type of genome-wide chromatin accessibility data with RNA-Seq data and in-silico predicted TF binding sites. We corroborated the classification of TFs into repressors and activators by three independent analyses based on enrichments of active/repressive chromatin states, correlation of TF activity with gene expression, and activator-and repressor-specific chromatin footprints. To show the power of diffTF , we present two case studies: First, we applied diffTF in to a large ATAC-Seq/RNA-Seq dataset comparing mutated and unmutated chronic lymphocytic leukemia samples, where we identified dozens of known (40%) and potentially novel (60%) TFs that are differentially active. We were also able to classify almost half of them as either repressor and activator. Second, we applied diffTF to a small ATAC-Seq/RNA-Seq data set comparing two cell types along the hematopoietic differentiation trajectory (multipotent progenitors – MPP – versus granulocyte-macrophage progenitors – GMP). Here we identified the known drivers of differentiation and found that the majority of the differentially active TFs are transcriptional activators. Overall, diffTF was able to recover the known TFs in both case studies, additionally identified TFs that have been less well characterized in the given condition, and provides a classification of the TFs into transcriptional activators and repressors.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.celrep.2019.10.106

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • TF footprinting suggests that direct repressor binding may occur within nucleosome-occupied regions, while activator binding is strongly associated with nucleosome depletion.

    “TF footprinting suggests that direct repressor binding may occur within nucleosome-occupied regions, while activator binding is strongly associated with nucleosome depletion54.”

    From Single-cell spatial multi-omics and deep learning dissect enhancer-driven gene regulatory networks in liver zonation (2024) · cites this paper as [54]

    In “Determination of the molecular function of TFs: transcriptional repressors and activators” (page unavailable), the REST footprint shows accessibility at the binding motif but compact surrounding chromatin, whereas the STAT2 footprint shows increased accessibility around the binding site. This supports the repressor–activator contrast, but the paper does not establish that repressors bind within nucleosome-occupied regions or directly measure nucleosome depletion in this comparison. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • TF footprinting suggests that direct repressor binding may occur within nucleosome-occupied regions, while activator binding is strongly associated with nucleosome depletion.

    “As a potential mechanism, how repressor binding could result in the absence of an ATAC peak, TF footprinting indeed suggests that direct repressor binding may occur within nucleosome-occupied regions, while activator binding is strongly associated with nucleosome depletion64.”

    From Enhancer grammar of liver cell types and hepatocyte zonation states (2022) · cites this paper as [64]

    In “Determination of the molecular function of TFs” (Fig. 4a; page not available), REST’s footprint shows locally increased accessibility with compact surrounding chromatin, whereas STAT2’s shows increased accessibility across the surrounding region. This supports the contrast between repressor and activator footprints, but the paper does not establish binding within nucleosome-occupied regions or directly measure nucleosome depletion. The figure caption also says the analyzed binding sites overlapped open chromatin. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Berest, I., Arnold, C., Reyes-Palomares, A., Palla, G., Rasmussen, K. D., Giles, H., Bruch, P.-M., Huber, W., Dietrich, S., Helin, K., & Zaugg, J. B.
Affiliations
  • Heidelberg University (DE)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory (DE)
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University Hospital Heidelberg (DE)
  • European Bioinformatics Institute (GB)
Corresponding author
Zaugg, Judith B.
Venue
Cell Reports
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-12
Volume
29
Issue
10
Pages
3147-3159.e12
ISSN
2211-1247 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2993816863
Cited by
119
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 1
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cell Reports (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Discovery Research Portal (University of Dundee) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P30 CA008748)
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF17CC0027852)
  • Fundación Ramón Areces
  • Danmarks Frie Forskningsfond (8020-00044B)
  • Sundhed og Sygdom, Det Frie Forskningsråd (FSS 1333-00120B)
  • European Molecular Biology Laboratory
  • European Research Council (294666_DNAMET)
  • Bayer Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Bioinformatics and Genomic Networks
Keywords
transcription factor activity, transcriptional activator, transcriptional repressor, chromatin accessibility, transcription factor binding sites, RNA-seq, multi-omics integration, chronic lymphocytic leukemia, hematopoietic progenitor cells
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Chromatin, Gene Expression Regulation, Hematopoietic Stem Cells, Humans, Protein Binding, Transcription Factors, Transcription, Genetic, Leukemia, Lymphocytic, Chronic, B-Cell, Transcriptional Activation, Genome

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