Cited by 456Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsChromatin Remodeling and CancerGenetic Associations and Epidemiology

Enhancer-promoter interactions are encoded by complex genomic signatures on looping chromatin

Open access
Whalen, Sean, Truty, Rebecca M, Pollard, Katherine S·2016·Nature Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Discriminating the gene target of a distal regulatory element from other nearby transcribed genes is a challenging problem with the potential to illuminate the causal underpinnings of complex diseases. We present TargetFinder, a computational method that reconstructs regulatory landscapes from diverse features along the genome. The resulting models accurately predict individual enhancer-promoter interactions across multiple cell lines with a false discovery rate up to 15 times smaller than that obtained using the closest gene. By evaluating the genomic features driving this accuracy, we uncover interactions between structural proteins, transcription factors, epigenetic modifications, and transcription that together distinguish interacting from non-interacting enhancer-promoter pairs. Most of this signature is not proximal to the enhancers and promoters but instead decorates the looping DNA. We conclude that complex but consistent combinations of marks on the one-dimensional genome encode the three-dimensional structure of fine-scale regulatory interactions.

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 · 10.1038/ng.3539

Cites

122 of 122 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?

  • Assigning well-annotated genomic regions to specific genes is not as simple as choosing the closest gene or genes containing variation highly correlated with associated SNPs.

    “assigning even well-annotated genomic regions to specific genes is not as simple as choosing the closest gene or genes containing variation that is highly correlated with the associated SNPs which is usually the default approach (Whalen et al., 2016; Won et al., 2016)”
  • Whalen and colleagues showed TargetFinder results measured only by F1 score, making it impossible to detect the actual true positive rate and true negative rate of their tests.

    “For example, when Whalen and colleagues released TargetFinder, a tool to predict enhancer-promoters interactions in genomics, they showed its results measured only by F1 score [13], making it impossible to detect the actual true positive rate and true negative rate of their tests [69].”

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [93]Ester M Kriegel H-P Sander J Xu X A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining 226 231 1996

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Whalen, S., Truty, R. M., & Pollard, K. S.
Affiliations
  • Gladstone Institutes (US)
  • Invitae (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
  • Whalen, Sean
  • Pollard, Katherine S
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2016-04-04
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
488-496
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W2333286569
Cited by
456
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 38 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 40 · 2021: 47 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 58 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 43 · 2016: 20 · 2015: 2 · 2012: 1
FWCI
27.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Gladstone Institutes
  • National Institutes of Health (HL089707, U01-HL098179)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (UM1HL098179, P01HL089707, HL089707, U01HL098179)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH109907)
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 › Genetics › Genetic Associations and Epidemiology
Keywords
enhancer-promoter interactions, chromatin looping, 3D genome organization, distal regulatory elements, epigenetic modifications, transcription factors, structural proteins, cell line variation
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Cell Line, Chromatin, DNA, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Gene Expression Regulation, Humans, Models, Genetic, Nucleic Acid Conformation, Promoter Regions, Genetic, Protein Conformation, 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