Transcriptomics

Dataset Information

0

E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus vs. non-consensus binding sites


ABSTRACT: Recent genome-scale ChIP-chip studies of transcription factors have shown that a low percentage of experimentally determined binding sites contain the consensus motif for the immunoprecipitated factor. In most cases, differences between in vivo target sites that contain or lack a consensus motif have not been explored. We have previously shown that most sites to which E2F family members are bound in vivo do not contain E2F consensus motifs. The main purpose of this study was to develop an understanding of how E2F binding specificity is achieved in vivo. In particular, we have addressed how E2F family members are recruited to core promoter regions that lack a consensus motif and are excluded from other regions that contain a consensus motif. Using promoter and ENCODE arrays, we have shown that the predominant factors specifying whether E2F is recruited to an in vivo binding site are a) the site must be in a core promoter and b) the promoter region must be utilized as a promoter by the transcriptional machinery in that particular cell type. We have tested three models for recruitment of E2F to core promoters lacking a consensus site, including a) indirect recruitment, b) looping to the core promoter mediated by an E2F bound to a distal consensus motif, and c) assisted binding of E2F to a site that weakly resembles an E2F consensus motif within the core promoter. To test these models, we developed a new in vivo assay, termed eChIP, which allows analysis of transcription factor binding to isolated promoter fragments. Our findings suggest that in vivo a) the presence of a consensus motif is not sufficient to recruit E2Fs, b) E2Fs can bind to isolated regions that lack a consensus motif, and c) binding can require regions other than the best match to the E2F PWM in the core promoter. Keywords: E2F, ChIP-chip, transcription factor binding, consensus motifs 37 ChIP-chip arrays (of these, 14 array sets are biological duplicates). 22 samples are included in this series, the rest can be found in supplementary info to the following papers: Xu 2007, Jin 2006, Komashko 2008

ORGANISM(S): Musculus  

SUBMITTER: Peggy J Farnham   Victor X Jin  Xiaoqin Xu  Roman Rabinovich  Alina Rabinovich 

PROVIDER: E-GEOD-12126 | ArrayExpress | 2008-10-01

SECONDARY ACCESSION(S): GSE12126PRJNA113485

REPOSITORIES: GEO, ArrayExpress

altmetric image

Publications

E2F in vivo binding specificity: comparison of consensus versus nonconsensus binding sites.

Rabinovich Alina A   Jin Victor X VX   Rabinovich Roman R   Xu Xiaoqin X   Farnham Peggy J PJ  

Genome research 20081003 11


We have previously shown that most sites bound by E2F family members in vivo do not contain E2F consensus motifs. However, differences between in vivo target sites that contain or lack a consensus E2F motif have not been explored. To understand how E2F binding specificity is achieved in vivo, we have addressed how E2F family members are recruited to core promoter regions that lack a consensus motif and are excluded from other regions that contain a consensus motif. Using chromatin immunoprecipit  ...[more]

Similar Datasets

2008-10-01 | GSE12126 | GEO
| PRJNA113485 | ENA
| GSE61854 | GEO
2007-01-25 | GSE6409 | GEO
2011-04-04 | E-GEOD-28286 | ArrayExpress
2005-01-01 | MODEL1305010000 | BioModels Database
2017-10-04 | PXD006857 | Pride
2007-08-22 | GSE8716 | GEO
2007-08-22 | E-GEOD-8716 | ArrayExpress
2009-01-31 | GSE13918 | GEO