Cited by 204Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsMachine Learning in BioinformaticsGene Regulatory Network Analysis

FactorNet: A deep learning framework for predicting cell type specific transcription factor binding from nucleotide-resolution sequential data

Open access
Quang, Daniel, Xie, Xiaohui·2019·Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Due to the large numbers of transcription factors (TFs) and cell types, querying binding profiles of all valid TF/cell type pairs is not experimentally feasible. To address this issue, we developed a convolutional-recurrent neural network model, called FactorNet, to computationally impute the missing binding data. FactorNet trains on binding data from reference cell types to make predictions on testing cell types by leveraging a variety of features, including genomic sequences, genome annotations, gene expression, and signal data, such as DNase I cleavage. FactorNet implements several convenient strategies to reduce runtime and memory consumption. By visualizing the neural network models, we can interpret how the model predicts binding. We also investigate the variables that affect cross-cell type accuracy, and offer suggestions to improve upon this field. Our method ranked among the top teams in the ENCODE-DREAM in vivo Transcription Factor Binding Site Prediction Challenge, achieving first place on six of the 13 final round evaluation TF/cell type pairs, the most of any competing team. The FactorNet source code is publicly available, allowing users to reproduce our methodology from the ENCODE-DREAM Challenge.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ymeth.2019.03.020

Cites

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?

  • Further work has shown the efficacy of using much larger flanking regions of tens of thousands of bp.

    “The winning teams all used at least 1000 bp total for each bin, and further work has shown the efficacy of using much larger flanking regions of tens of thousands of bp (Quang and Xie, 2019; Avsec et al., 2021a).”

    From WILDS: A Benchmark of in-the-Wild Distribution Shifts (2020) · cites this paper as Quang and Xie, 2019

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 66 · Cited by 204

Authors
Quang, D., & Xie, X.
Affiliations
University of California, Irvine (US)
Corresponding author
  • Quang, Daniel
  • Xie, Xiaohui
Venue
Methods
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-08
Volume
166
Pages
40-47
ISSN
1046-2023 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2951410692
Cited by
204
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 43 · 2021: 41 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 1
FWCI
10.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DGE-1321846, IIS-1715017)
  • Israel National Road Safety Authority
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering
  • National Institutes of Health (U54-CA217378)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
Keywords
transcription factor binding site prediction, cell type specificity, convolutional recurrent neural network, DNase I cleavage, genome annotation, gene expression, model interpretability
MeSH terms
Deep Learning, Binding Sites, Chromatin, Nucleotides, Protein Binding, Software, Transcription Factors, Neural Networks, Computer

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