Cited by 113Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsEpigenetics and DNA MethylationChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

Supervised enhancer prediction with epigenetic pattern recognition and targeted validation

Open access
Sethi, Anurag, Gu, Mengting, Gumusgoz, Emrah, Chan, Landon, Yan, Koon-Kiu, Rozowsky, Joel, Barozzi, Iros, Afzal, Veena +17 more·2020·Nature Methods

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Enhancers are important non-coding elements, but they have traditionally been hard to characterize experimentally. The development of massively parallel assays allows the characterization of large numbers of enhancers for the first time. Here, we developed a framework using Drosophila STARR-seq to create shape-matching filters based on meta-profiles of epigenetic features. We integrated these features with supervised machine-learning algorithms to predict enhancers. We further demonstrated that our model could be transferred to predict enhancers in mammals. We comprehensively validated the predictions using a combination of in vivo and in vitro approaches, involving transgenic assays in mice and transduction-based reporter assays in human cell lines (153 enhancers in total). The results confirmed that our model can accurately predict enhancers in different species without re-parameterization. Finally, we examined the transcription factor binding patterns at predicted enhancers versus promoters. We demonstrated that these patterns enable the construction of a secondary model that effectively distinguishes enhancers and promoters.

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/s41592-020-0907-8

Cites

86 of 86 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?

  • Enhancer detection based on chromatin profiling may falsely detect regions without appreciable regulatory activity, as well as miss some functional elements.

    “While enhancer detection based on chromatin profiling has become standard, this approach may falsely detect regions without appreciable regulatory activity, as well as miss some functional elements [146, 162].”

    From Transcriptional enhancers and their communication with gene promoters (2021) · cites this paper as [162]

    The Online methods (Model assessment; page unavailable) describe non-STARR-seq regions with H3K27ac signal, supporting the possibility that a chromatin signal can occur without measured enhancer activity. The Introduction (page unavailable) says active enhancers are *usually* in open chromatin, but the copy does not directly establish that chromatin-based detection misses functional elements. (LLM, conf=0.79)

    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

3 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [56]Ernst J. and Kellis M, ChromHMM: automating chromatin-state discovery and characterization. Nature Methods, 2012. 9(3): p. 215– 216. 22373907 PMC3577932

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sethi, A., Gu, M., Gumusgoz, E., Chan, L., Yan, K.-K., Rozowsky, J., Barozzi, I., Afzal, V., Akiyama, J. A., Plajzer-Frick, I., Yan, C., Novak, C. S., Kato, M., Garvin, T. H., Pham, Q., Harrington, A., Mannion, B. J., Lee, E. A., Fukuda-Yuzawa, Y., Visel, A., Dickel, D. E., Yip, K. Y., Sutton, R., Pennacchio, L. A., & Gerstein, M.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (US)
Corresponding author
Gerstein, Mark
Venue
Nature Methods
Published
2020-07-29
Volume
17
Issue
8
Pages
807-814
ISSN
  • 1548-7091 (ISSN-L)
  • 1548-7105
OpenAlex
W3046699218
Cited by
109
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Methods (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • OSTI OAI (U.S. Department of Energy Office of Scientific and Technical Information) (submittedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | National Institutes of Health (HG009446-01)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R24HL123879)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Human Genome Research Institute (R01HG003988, U54HG006997, UM1HG009421)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Epigenetics and DNA Methylation
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
enhancer prediction, STARR-seq, epigenetic features, supervised learning, interspecies transmission, transcription factor binding, promoter identification, Drosophila, non-coding elements
MeSH terms
Animals, Cell Line, Drosophila, Histones, Humans, Mice, Transgenic, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Reproducibility of Results, Epigenesis, Genetic, Mice

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