Rapid analysis of the DNA-binding specificities of transcription factors with DNA microarrays - PubMed (original) (raw)
Comparative Study
. 2004 Dec;36(12):1331-9.
doi: 10.1038/ng1473. Epub 2004 Nov 14.
Affiliations
- PMID: 15543148
- PMCID: PMC2692596
- DOI: 10.1038/ng1473
Comparative Study
Rapid analysis of the DNA-binding specificities of transcription factors with DNA microarrays
Sonali Mukherjee et al. Nat Genet. 2004 Dec.
Abstract
We developed a new DNA microarray-based technology, called protein binding microarrays (PBMs), that allows rapid, high-throughput characterization of the in vitro DNA binding-site sequence specificities of transcription factors in a single day. Using PBMs, we identified the DNA binding-site sequence specificities of the yeast transcription factors Abf1, Rap1 and Mig1. Comparison of these proteins' in vitro binding sites with their in vivo binding sites indicates that PBM-derived sequence specificities can accurately reflect in vivo DNA sequence specificities. In addition to previously identified targets, Abf1, Rap1 and Mig1 bound to 107, 90 and 75 putative new target intergenic regions, respectively, many of which were upstream of previously uncharacterized open reading frames. Comparative sequence analysis indicated that many of these newly identified sites are highly conserved across five sequenced sensu stricto yeast species and, therefore, are probably functional in vivo binding sites that may be used in a condition-specific manner. Similar PBM experiments should be useful in identifying new cis regulatory elements and transcriptional regulatory networks in various genomes.
Figures
Figure 1. Protein binding microarray (PBM) schematic
(a) Overview of PBM experiments. (b) Whole-genome yeast intergenic microarray bound by Rap1. The fluorescence intensities of the spots are shown in false-color, with white indicating saturated signal intensity, red indicating high signal intensity, green indicating moderate signal intensity, and blue indicating low signal intensity. (c) Zoom-in on a portion of the whole-genome yeast intergenic microarray bound by Rap1.
Figure 1. Protein binding microarray (PBM) schematic
(a) Overview of PBM experiments. (b) Whole-genome yeast intergenic microarray bound by Rap1. The fluorescence intensities of the spots are shown in false-color, with white indicating saturated signal intensity, red indicating high signal intensity, green indicating moderate signal intensity, and blue indicating low signal intensity. (c) Zoom-in on a portion of the whole-genome yeast intergenic microarray bound by Rap1.
Figure 2. Identifying the specifically bound spots
(a) Distribution of Rap1 PBM ratio (PBM / SybrGreen I) data. The arrow indicates those spots passing a P value threshold of 0.001 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing. Indicated in red are spots harboring an exact match to a sequence belonging to our discovered Rap1 binding site motif. (b) Zoom-in on intergenic regions, from both PBMs (left) and SybrGreen I stained microarrays (right), upstream of RPL14A, RPL8A, and OPI3, which are known direct targets of Rap1. The fluorescence intensities of the spots are shown in false-color, color-coded as described previously (Fig. 1 legend). PBM P values are corrected for multiple hypotheses. Determination of binding in ChIP-chip experiments (“YES” or “NO”) is described in Methods. All regions shown have an exact match to a sequence belonging to the discovered Rap1 motif (“YES”). For each region, the binding site is conserved across five sensu stricto yeast strains either to within two standard deviations (“2 SD”) or 100% identical at each position (“Exact”) as described in Methods. “*” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al..
Figure 2. Identifying the specifically bound spots
(a) Distribution of Rap1 PBM ratio (PBM / SybrGreen I) data. The arrow indicates those spots passing a P value threshold of 0.001 after correction for multiple hypothesis testing. Indicated in red are spots harboring an exact match to a sequence belonging to our discovered Rap1 binding site motif. (b) Zoom-in on intergenic regions, from both PBMs (left) and SybrGreen I stained microarrays (right), upstream of RPL14A, RPL8A, and OPI3, which are known direct targets of Rap1. The fluorescence intensities of the spots are shown in false-color, color-coded as described previously (Fig. 1 legend). PBM P values are corrected for multiple hypotheses. Determination of binding in ChIP-chip experiments (“YES” or “NO”) is described in Methods. All regions shown have an exact match to a sequence belonging to the discovered Rap1 motif (“YES”). For each region, the binding site is conserved across five sensu stricto yeast strains either to within two standard deviations (“2 SD”) or 100% identical at each position (“Exact”) as described in Methods. “*” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al..
Figure 3. DNA binding site motifs as determined by PBMs compared to motifs derived from ChIP-chip data and from TRANSFAC
Sequence logos were generated essentially as described previously. Group specificity scores were calculated as described in Methods. “*” indicates Rap1, Abf1, and Mig1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al.. Although the Mig1 binding site motif derived from the ChIP-chip data has a statistically significant group specificity score, it is not a match to either the TRANSFAC or PBM Mig1 motif. The Pearson correlation coefficients comparing the PBM versus ChIP-chip motifs, as well as those comparing each of these motifs versus the motifs present in the TRANSFAC database, were as follows: Rap1 PBM versus Lee et al. ChIP-chip: 0.992; Rap1 PBM versus Lieb et al. ChIP-chip: 0.995; Rap1 PBM versus TRANSFAC: 0.953; Rap1 Lee et al. versus Lieb et al. ChIP-chip: 0.985; Rap1 Lee et al. ChIP-chip versus TRANSFAC: 0.921; Rap1 Lieb et al. ChIP-chip versus TRANSFAC: 0.950; Abf1 PBM versus ChIP-chip: 0.989; Abf1 PBM versus TRANSFAC: 0.978; Abf1 ChIP-chip versus TRANSFAC: 0.986; Mig1 PBM versus ChIP-chip: 0.453; Mig1 PBM versus TRANSFAC: 0.938; Mig1 ChIP-chip versus TRANSFAC: 0.406.
Figure 4. EMSAs of PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequences
(a) Rap1 binding site sequences present within the DNA probes corresponding to portions of the intergenic regions iYLL051C (P = 3.20 × 10-16) and iYPL221W (P = 3.91 x 10-21), aligned against the TRANSFAC and PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequence logos. (b) Lanes 1 and 2, positive control DNA probe; lanes 3 and 4, negative control DNA probe; lanes 5 and 6, DNA probe corresponding to the best Rap1 binding site sequence that could be identified within the iYLL051C intergenic region; lanes 7 and 8, DNA probe corresponding to the PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequence within the iYPL221W intergenic region. “-” indicates Rap1 protein was not present in the binding reaction; “+” indicates Rap1 protein was present the binding reaction.
Figure 4. EMSAs of PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequences
(a) Rap1 binding site sequences present within the DNA probes corresponding to portions of the intergenic regions iYLL051C (P = 3.20 × 10-16) and iYPL221W (P = 3.91 x 10-21), aligned against the TRANSFAC and PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequence logos. (b) Lanes 1 and 2, positive control DNA probe; lanes 3 and 4, negative control DNA probe; lanes 5 and 6, DNA probe corresponding to the best Rap1 binding site sequence that could be identified within the iYLL051C intergenic region; lanes 7 and 8, DNA probe corresponding to the PBM-derived Rap1 binding site sequence within the iYPL221W intergenic region. “-” indicates Rap1 protein was not present in the binding reaction; “+” indicates Rap1 protein was present the binding reaction.
Figure 5. Comparison of bound intergenic regions derived from PBM data as compared to those derived from ChIP-chip,
Venn diagrams depicting the results of the comparison for (a) Rap1, (b) Abf1, and (c) Mig1. The Venn diagrams depict data only for those intergenic regions for which data were available for both ChIP-chip and PBMs. “*” indicates Rap1, Abf1, and Mig1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al..
Figure 5. Comparison of bound intergenic regions derived from PBM data as compared to those derived from ChIP-chip,
Venn diagrams depicting the results of the comparison for (a) Rap1, (b) Abf1, and (c) Mig1. The Venn diagrams depict data only for those intergenic regions for which data were available for both ChIP-chip and PBMs. “*” indicates Rap1, Abf1, and Mig1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al..
Figure 5. Comparison of bound intergenic regions derived from PBM data as compared to those derived from ChIP-chip,
Venn diagrams depicting the results of the comparison for (a) Rap1, (b) Abf1, and (c) Mig1. The Venn diagrams depict data only for those intergenic regions for which data were available for both ChIP-chip and PBMs. “*” indicates Rap1, Abf1, and Mig1 ChIP-chip data from Lee et al., and “#” indicates Rap1 ChIP-chip data from Lieb et al..
Figure 6. Cross-species sequence conservation of binding sites identified from PBM data as compared to those identified from ChIP-chip data
From left to right for a single TF, bars represent all spots bound in PBMs, all spots bound in ChIP-chip, and spots bound in PBMs and not ChIP-chip. Spots were called `bound' as described in Methods. Shown in dark gray is the subset of bound spots with S. cerevisiae binding sites conserved to within two standard deviations of the motif average across all five sensu stricto species. Shown in black is the subset of S. cerevisiae bound spots with conserved sites 100% identical across all five species. The remaining bound spots are in light gray.
Similar articles
- Protein binding microarrays (PBMs) for rapid, high-throughput characterization of the sequence specificities of DNA binding proteins.
Berger MF, Bulyk ML. Berger MF, et al. Methods Mol Biol. 2006;338:245-60. doi: 10.1385/1-59745-097-9:245. Methods Mol Biol. 2006. PMID: 16888363 Free PMC article. - Linking DNA-binding proteins to their recognition sequences by using protein microarrays.
Ho SW, Jona G, Chen CT, Johnston M, Snyder M. Ho SW, et al. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006 Jun 27;103(26):9940-5. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0509185103. Epub 2006 Jun 19. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2006. PMID: 16785442 Free PMC article. - Chromatin mediation of a transcriptional memory effect in yeast.
Paul E, Tirosh I, Lai W, Buck MJ, Palumbo MJ, Morse RH. Paul E, et al. G3 (Bethesda). 2015 Mar 5;5(5):829-38. doi: 10.1534/g3.115.017418. G3 (Bethesda). 2015. PMID: 25748434 Free PMC article. - Protein binding microarrays for the characterization of DNA-protein interactions.
Bulyk ML. Bulyk ML. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007;104:65-85. doi: 10.1007/10_025. Adv Biochem Eng Biotechnol. 2007. PMID: 17290819 Free PMC article. Review. - Analysis of sequence specificities of DNA-binding proteins with protein binding microarrays.
Bulyk ML. Bulyk ML. Methods Enzymol. 2006;410:279-99. doi: 10.1016/S0076-6879(06)10013-0. Methods Enzymol. 2006. PMID: 16938556 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
- Machine Learning and Deep Learning in Synthetic Biology: Key Architectures, Applications, and Challenges.
Goshisht MK. Goshisht MK. ACS Omega. 2024 Feb 19;9(9):9921-9945. doi: 10.1021/acsomega.3c05913. eCollection 2024 Mar 5. ACS Omega. 2024. PMID: 38463314 Free PMC article. Review. - KaScape: a sequencing-based method for global characterization of protein‒DNA binding affinity.
Chen H, Xu Y, Jin J, Su XD. Chen H, et al. Sci Rep. 2023 Oct 3;13(1):16595. doi: 10.1038/s41598-023-43426-x. Sci Rep. 2023. PMID: 37789131 Free PMC article. - Mechanisms and biotechnological applications of transcription factors.
He H, Yang M, Li S, Zhang G, Ding Z, Zhang L, Shi G, Li Y. He H, et al. Synth Syst Biotechnol. 2023 Aug 31;8(4):565-577. doi: 10.1016/j.synbio.2023.08.006. eCollection 2023 Dec. Synth Syst Biotechnol. 2023. PMID: 37691767 Free PMC article. Review. - Zinc cluster transcription factors frequently activate target genes using a non-canonical half-site binding mode.
Recio PS, Mitra NJ, Shively CA, Song D, Jaramillo G, Lewis KS, Chen X, Mitra RD. Recio PS, et al. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023 Jun 9;51(10):5006-5021. doi: 10.1093/nar/gkad320. Nucleic Acids Res. 2023. PMID: 37125648 Free PMC article. - Databases and prospects of dynamic gene regulation in eukaryotes: A mini review.
Chow CN, Yang CW, Chang WC. Chow CN, et al. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2023 Mar 22;21:2147-2159. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2023.03.032. eCollection 2023. Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2023. PMID: 37013004 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Schena M, Shalon D, Davis RW, Brown PO. Quantitative monitoring of gene expression patterns with a complementary DNA microarray. Science. 1995;270:467–470. - PubMed
- Wodicka L, Dong H, Mittmann M, Ho MH, Lockhart DJ. Genome-wide expression monitoring in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Nat. Biotechnol. 1997;15:1359–1367. - PubMed
- Ren B, et al. Genome-wide location and function of DNA binding proteins. Science. 2000;290:2306–2309. - PubMed
- Iyer VR, et al. Genomic binding sites of the yeast cell-cycle transcription factors SBF and MBF. Nature. 2001;409:533–538. - PubMed
- Lieb JD, Liu X, Botstein D, Brown PO. Promoter-specific binding of Rap1 revealed by genome-wide maps of protein-DNA association. Nat. Genet. 2001;28:327–334. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
- R01 HG002966/HG/NHGRI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HG002966-02/HG/NHGRI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HG003420/HG/NHGRI NIH HHS/United States
- R01 HG003420-01/HG/NHGRI NIH HHS/United States
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Molecular Biology Databases
Miscellaneous