Cited by 82Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsCancer-related Molecular PathwaysChromatin Remodeling and Cancer

Multiplex enhancer-reporter assays uncover unsophisticated TP53 enhancer logic

Open access
Verfaillie, Annelien, Svetlichnyy, Dmitry, Imrichova, Hana, Davie, Kristofer, Fiers, Mark, Kalender Atak, Zeynep, Hulselmans, Gert, Christiaens, Valerie +1 more·2016·Genome Research

Abstract

Transcription factors regulate their target genes by binding to regulatory regions in the genome. Although the binding preferences of TP53 are known, it remains unclear what distinguishes functional enhancers from nonfunctional binding. In addition, the genome is scattered with recognition sequences that remain unoccupied. Using two complementary techniques of multiplex enhancer-reporter assays, we discovered that functional enhancers could be discriminated from nonfunctional binding events by the occurrence of a single TP53 canonical motif. By combining machine learning with a meta-analysis of TP53 ChIP-seq data sets, we identified a core set of more than 1000 responsive enhancers in the human genome. This TP53 cistrome is invariably used between cell types and experimental conditions, whereas differences among experiments can be attributed to indirect nonfunctional binding events. Our data suggest that TP53 enhancers represent a class of unsophisticated cell-autonomous enhancers containing a single TP53 binding site, distinct from complex developmental enhancers that integrate signals from multiple transcription factors.

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 · 10.1101/gr.204149.116

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?

  • A comparison of binding studies shows that functional p53 binding is independent of cell type and treatment.

    “Moreover, a comparison of binding studies shows that functional p53 binding is independent of cell type and treatment.19”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Genome-wide data do not support promoter-specific activities of p53, but instead suggest unsophisticated p53 binding.

    “Genome-wide data, however, do not support promoter-specific activities of p53, but instead suggest unsophisticated p53 binding.19”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

  • A recent comparison of multiple genome-wide p53 binding studies showed that spacers and half-sites have no role in functional p53 binding.

    “A recent comparison of multiple genome-wide p53 binding studies, however, showed that spacers and half-sites have no role in functional p53 binding.19”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Gene downregulation through distal enhancer interference by p53 binding is not supported by data from humans.

    “but is not supported by data from humans.18, 19”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

  • The current model describes p53 solely as a transcriptional activator and not as a repressor.

    “The current model describes p53 solely as a transcriptional activator and not as repressor,53 and is supported by multiple genome-wide analyses.18, 19, 23, 24, 89”

    From Census and evaluation of p53 target genes (2017) · cites this paper as [19]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Verfaillie, A., Svetlichnyy, D., Imrichova, H., Davie, K., Fiers, M., Kalender Atak, Z., Hulselmans, G., Christiaens, V., & Aerts, S.
Affiliations
KU Leuven (BE)
Corresponding author
Aerts, Stein
Venue
Genome Research
Published
2016-05-18
Volume
26
Issue
7
Pages
882-895
ISSN
  • 1088-9051 (ISSN-L)
  • 1549-5469
OpenAlex
W2408306345
Cited by
82
References
86
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Genome Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • The Research Foundation - Flanders
  • FWO (G.0640.13, G.0791.14)
  • Special Research Fund (BOF) KU Leuven (PF/10/016, OT/13/103)
  • Foundation Against Cancer (2010-154, 2012-F2)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related Molecular Pathways
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Chromatin Remodeling and Cancer
Keywords
TP53, enhancers, transcription factor binding, cistrome, transcriptional regulation, machine learning
MeSH terms
Binding Sites, Biological Assay, Enhancer Elements, Genetic, Humans, Protein Binding, Transcriptional Activation, Tumor Suppressor Protein p53, Genes, Reporter, MCF-7 Cells

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