Predicting Transcript Production Rates in Yeast With Sparse Linear Models

To provide biological insights into transcriptional regulation, a couple of groups have recently presented models relating the promoter DNA-bound transcription factors (TFs) to downstream gene’s mean transcript level or transcript production rates over time. However, transcript production is dynamic in response to changes of TF concentrations over time. Also, TFs are not the only factors binding to promoters; other DNA binding factors (DBFs) bind as well, especially nucleosomes, resulting in competition between DBFs for binding at same genomic location. Additionally, not only TFs, but also some other elements regulate transcription. Within core promoter, various regulatory elements influence RNAPII recruitment, PIC formation, RNAPII searching for TSS, and RNAPII initiating transcription. Moreover, it is proposed that downstream from TSS, nucleosomes resist RNAPII elongation.

Here, we provide a machine learning framework to predict transcript production rates from DNA sequences. We applied this framework in the S. cerevisiae yeast for two scenarios: a) to predict the dynamic transcript production rate during the cell cycle for native promoters; b) to predict the mean transcript production rate over time for synthetic promoters. As far as we know, our framework is the first successful attempt to have a model that can predict dynamic transcript production rates from DNA sequences only: with cell cycle data set, we got Pearson correlation coefficient Cp = 0.751 and coefficient of determination r2 = 0.564 on test set for predicting dynamic transcript production rate over time. Also, for DREAM6 Gene Promoter Expression Prediction challenge, our fitted model outperformed all participant teams, best of all teams, and a model combining best team’s k-mer based sequence features and another paper’s biologically mechanistic features, in terms of all scoring metrics.

Moreover, our framework shows its capability of identifying generalizable fea- tures by interpreting the highly predictive models, and thereby provide support for associated hypothesized mechanisms about transcriptional regulation. With the learned sparse linear models, we got results supporting the following biological insights: a) TFs govern the probability of RNAPII recruitment and initiation possibly through interactions with PIC components and transcription cofactors; b) the core promoter amplifies the transcript production probably by influencing PIC formation, RNAPII recruitment, DNA melting, RNAPII searching for and selecting TSS, releasing RNAPII from general transcription factors, and thereby initiation; c) there is strong transcriptional synergy between TFs and core promoter elements; d) the regulatory elements within core promoter region are more than TATA box and nucleosome free region, suggesting the existence of still unidentified TAF-dependent and cofactor-dependent core promoter elements in yeast S. cerevisiae; e) nucleosome occupancy is helpful for representing +1 and -1 nucleosomes’ regulatory roles on transcription.

Sequence and Structural Determinants of Specificity Differences between Paralogous Transcription Factors

Transcription factors (TFs) control the temporal and spatial expression of target genes by interacting with DNA in a sequence-specific manner. Recent advances in high throughput experiments that measure TF-DNA interactions in vitro and in vivo have facilitated the identification of DNA binding sites for thousands of TFs. However, it remains unclear how each individual TF achieves its specificity, especially in the case of paralogous TFs that recognize distinct target genomic sites despite sharing very similar DNA binding motifs. In my work, I used a combination of high throughput in vitro protein-DNA binding assays and machine-learning algorithms to characterize and model the binding specificity of 11 paralogous TFs from 4 distinct structural families. My work proves that even very closely related paralogous TFs, with indistinguishable DNA binding motifs, oftentimes exhibit differential binding specificity for their genomic target sites, especially for sites with moderate binding affinity. Importantly, the differences I identify in vitro and through computational modeling help explain, at least in part, the differential in vivo genomic targeting by paralogous TFs. Future work will focus on in vivo factors that might also be important for specificity differences between paralogous TFs, such as DNA methylation, interactions with protein cofactors, or the chromatin environment. In this larger context, my work emphasizes the importance of intrinsic DNA binding specificity in targeting of paralogous TFs to the genome.