CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 229Genomics and Chromatin DynamicsGenomics and Phylogenetic StudiesMachine Learning in Bioinformatics

Technical Note on Transcription Factor Motif Discovery from Importance Scores (TF-MoDISco) version 0.5.6.5

Open access
Shrikumar, Avanti, Tian, Katherine, Avsec, Žiga, Shcherbina, Anna, Banerjee, Abhimanyu, Sharmin, Mahfuza, Nair, Surag, Kundaje, Anshul·2018·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.1811.00416arXiv 1811.00416
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

TF-MoDISco (Transcription Factor Motif Discovery from Importance Scores) is an algorithm for identifying motifs from basepair-level importance scores computed on genomic sequence data. This technical note focuses on version v0.5.6.5. The implementation is available at https://github.com/kundajelab/tfmodisco/tree/v0.5.6.5

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.1811.00416

Cites

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?

  • TF-MoDISCO analysis identified several motifs in background DNA that individually explained up to 9% in the variance of activities, including motifs resembling Cebpa, Gata1/2, and Spi1/Fli1 binding sites.

    “Transcription Factor Motif Discovery from Importance Scores (TF-MoDISCO)48 analysis identified several motifs in background DNA that individually explained up to 9% in the variance of activities, including motifs resembling Cebpa, Gata1/2, and Spi1/Fli1 binding sites (Figures S4F and S4G).”

    From Design principles of cell-state-specific enhancers in hematopoiesis (2025) · cites this paper as [48]

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. [2][2] Ž Avsec, M Weilert, A Shrikumar, A Alexandari, and others. Deep learning at base-resolution reveals motif syntax of the cis-regulatory code. bioRxiv, 2019.
  2. [5][5] Jack Lanchantin, Ritambhara Singh, Zeming Lin, and Yanjun Qi. Deep motif: Visualizing genomic sequence classifications. arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.01133, 2016. · arXiv
  3. [6][6] Jacob H Levine, Erin F Simonds, Sean C Bendall, Kara L Davis, El-Ad D Amir, Michelle D Tadmor, Oren Litvin, Harris G Fienberg, Astraea Jager, Eli R Zunder, Rachel Finck, Amanda L Gedman, Ina Radtke, James R Downing, Dana Pe'er, and Garry P Nolan. Data-Driven phenotypic dissection of AML reveals progenitor-like cells that correlate with prognosis. Cell, 162(1):184–197, July 2015.
  4. [8][8] Avanti Shrikumar, Peyton Greenside, and Anshul Kundaje. Learning important features through propagating activation differences. 70:3145–3153, 06–11 Aug 2017. URL http://proceedings. mlr.press/v70/shrikumar17a.html.
  5. [9][9] Avanti Shrikumar, Eva Prakash, and Anshul Kundaje. GkmExplain: fast and accurate interpretation of nonlinear gapped k-mer SVMs. Bioinformatics, 35(14):i173–i182, July 2019.
  6. [10][10] Mukund Sundararajan, Ankur Taly, and Qiqi Yan. Axiomatic attribution for deep networks. CoRR, abs/1703.01365, 2017. URL http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01365. 15 https://github.com/kundajelab/tfmodisco/blob/ffdc70bf08852a18f41ba684a58f54cbd5f8c1d0/examples/H1ESC_Nanog_gkmsvm/TF%20MoDISco%20Nanog.ipynb https://github.com/kundajelab/tfmodisco/blob/ffdc70bf08852a18f41ba684a58f54cbd5f8c1d0/examples/H1ESC_Nanog_gkmsvm/TF%20MoDISco%20Nanog.ipynb http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/shrikumar17a.html http://proceedings.mlr.press/v70/shrikumar17a.html http://arxiv.org/abs/1703.01365 · arXiv
  7. [11][11] V A Traag, L Waltman, and N J van Eck. From louvain to leiden: guaranteeing well-connected communities. Sci. Rep., 9(1):5233, March 2019.
  8. [12][12] Jian Zhou and Olga G Troyanskaya. Predicting effects of noncoding variants with deep learning–based sequence model. Nat. Methods, 12(10):931–934, August 2015. 16

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shrikumar, A., Tian, K., Avsec, Ž., Shcherbina, A., Banerjee, A., Sharmin, M., Nair, S., & Kundaje, A.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2018
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1811.00416
arXiv
1811.00416
OpenAlex
W2898981235
Cited by
229
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 62 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 39 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 27 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Chromatin Dynamics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Genomics and Phylogenetic Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Machine Learning in Bioinformatics
Keywords
transcription factor binding motifs, motif discovery, genome sequence analysis

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