FactorNet: A deep learning framework for predicting cell type specific transcription factor binding from nucleotide-resolution sequential data
Open accessPublished 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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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)
- PMC
- PMC6708499
- 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
- green
- doi.org
- 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