Sequence and chromatin determinants of cell-type–specific transcription factor binding

(Downloading may take up to 30 seconds. If the slide opens in your browser, select File -> Save As to save it.)

Click on image to view larger version.

Figure 2.
Figure 2.

SVM sequence models better predict binding sites than traditional motif approaches. (A) The accuracy of our method is assessed by the area under the ROC curve, which provides a natural trade-off between false positives (x-axis) and sensitivity (y-axis). The ROC curve is shown for discriminating BCL11A ChIP-seq peaks from nonpeaks using four approaches: k-mer SVM, MDscan, cERMIT, and Weeder. (B) The accuracy (AUC) of k-mer SVM models (y-axis) is compared against motif-based algorithms (MDscan, cERMIT, DME, and Weeder; x-axis) for discriminating ChIP-seq peaks from flanking regions. We used training and test sets taken from the same experiment; only accuracy on the test set is shown. Results for transcription factors with multiple ChIP-seq experiments for replicates and cell types were averaged. The SVM models are significantly more accurate than each of the alternative methods (P-values inset and color-coded for each method). (C) The k-mer SVM model is able to learn degenerate motifs. We show the k-mer SVM scores (y-axis) versus the cERMIT motif score (x-axis) for binding sites of BCL11A in GM12878. Example binding sites that are detected by the SVM but receive low scores by the motif are enriched for a more degenerate motif instance, as found by MEME.

This Article

  1. Genome Res. 22: 1723-1734

Preprint Server