Cited by 655Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsGene Regulatory Network AnalysisEpigenetics and DNA Methylation

Base-resolution models of transcription-factor binding reveal soft motif syntax

Open access
Avsec, Žiga, Weilert, Melanie, Shrikumar, Avanti, Krueger, Sabrina, Alexandari, Amr, Dalal, Khyati, Fropf, Robin, McAnany, Charles +3 more·2021·Nature Genetics

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

The arrangement (syntax) of transcription factor (TF) binding motifs is an important part of the cis-regulatory code, yet remains elusive. We introduce a deep learning model, BPNet, that uses DNA sequence to predict base-resolution chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP)-nexus binding profiles of pluripotency TFs. We develop interpretation tools to learn predictive motif representations and identify soft syntax rules for cooperative TF binding interactions. Strikingly, Nanog preferentially binds with helical periodicity, and TFs often cooperate in a directional manner, which we validate using clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR)-induced point mutations. Our model represents a powerful general approach to uncover the motifs and syntax of cis-regulatory sequences in genomics data.

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/s41588-021-00782-6

Cites

161 of 162 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?

  • The BPNet architecture has been used widely in genomics and represents a very strong default architecture for modeling small-sized datasets from scratch through supervised learning.

    “The BPNet architecture has been used widely in genomics and represents a very strong default architecture for modeling small-sized datasets from scratch through supervised learning.”

    From Nucleotide Transformer: building and evaluating robust foundation models for human genomics (2025) · cites this paper as [9]

    The BPNet architecture and training sections describe a supervised model trained on genomic data, and the Discussion calls it a general framework that outperformed the methods evaluated. The paper does not establish that BPNet was already widely used in genomics or that it is a strong default for small-sized datasets trained from scratch; its reported training is not presented as a small-dataset evaluation. The supplied passages have section labels but no page numbers. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.

    “Machine-learning models trained to predict function from DNA sequences have been successful at characterizing regulatory syntax and interpreting genetic variant effects.”

    From Predicting RNA-seq coverage from DNA sequence as a unifying model of gene regulation (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Abstract and Discussion show that BPNet uses DNA sequence to characterize regulatory motif syntax and predict the effects of experimentally introduced sequence changes. But the Discussion presents pinpointing disease-associated genetic variants as a future opportunity, not an accomplished interpretation of genetic variant effects in this study. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Thus far, sequence-based models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.

    “Thus far, such models have focused on assays in which measured activity is proportional to local sequencing read counts.”

    From Predicting RNA-seq coverage from DNA sequence as a unifying model of gene regulation (2025) · cites this paper as [7]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes existing transcription-factor binding models as predicting binary binding events or continuous binding signals, and the Results describe ChIP-nexus profiles in terms of local read counts. This supports the claim for the transcription-factor binding models discussed, but the paper does not establish that sequence-based models generally had focused on read-count-based assays. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Finer resolution has potential benefits when data support it, but would extend the sequence length entering the quadratic complexity MHA and make the model engineering intractable on currently available hardware.

    “Finer resolution has potential benefits when the data support it15, but would extend the sequence length entering the quadratic complexity MHA and make the model engineering intractable on currently available hardware.”
  • A deep learning algorithm applied to binding of pluripotency transcription factors at base resolution in mouse embryonic stem cells suggested a soft motif syntax whereby transcription factors help each other to bind directly to the enhancer with a lenient distance-dependency between binding sites.

    “Additionally, a deep learning algorithm applied to binding of pluripotency TFs at base resolution in mouse embryonic stem cells (ESCs) suggested a “soft motif syntax” whereby TFs help each other to bind directly to the enhancer with a lenient distance-dependency between binding sites [98].”

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

1 of the 163 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [19]Hughes JD, Estep PW, Tavazoie S & Church GM Computational identification of cis-regulatory elements associated with groups of functionally related genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J. Mol. Biol 296, 1205– 1214 (2000). 10698627
  2. [41]Shrikumar A TF-MoDISco v0.4.2.2-alpha: Technical Note. arXiv (2018).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Avsec, Ž., Weilert, M., Shrikumar, A., Krueger, S., Alexandari, A., Dalal, K., Fropf, R., McAnany, C., Gagneur, J., Kundaje, A., & Zeitlinger, J.
Affiliations
  • Google DeepMind (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Stowers Institute for Medical Research (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
Corresponding author
  • Kundaje, Anshul
  • Zeitlinger, Julia
Venue
Nature Genetics
Published
2021-02-18
Volume
53
Issue
3
Pages
354-366
ISSN
  • 1061-4036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1546-1718
OpenAlex
W3130819465
Cited by
610
References
163
Citations by year
2026: 118 · 2025: 108 · 2024: 124 · 2023: 102 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 49 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 2
FWCI
29.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Genetics (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Human Genome Research Institute (1R01HG010211, 1U01HG009431, 1R01HG009674)
  • Howard Hughes Medical Institute (International Student Research Fellowship)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute of General Medical Sciences (1DP2GM123485)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Gene Regulatory Network Analysis
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
Keywords
transcription factor binding, pluripotency transcription factors, Nanog, helical periodicity, explainable deep learning
MeSH terms
Mouse Embryonic Stem Cells, Nanog Homeobox Protein, Deep Learning, Animals, Binding Sites, Transcription Factors, Reproducibility of Results, Neural Networks, Computer, Computational Biology, Chromatin Immunoprecipitation, Octamer Transcription Factor-3, Mice, SOXB1 Transcription Factors, Nucleotide Motifs, Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats

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