- Open Access
TF-centered downstream gene set enrichment analysis: Inference of causal regulators by integrating TF-DNA interactions and protein post-translational modifications information
© Liu et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2010
- Published: 14 December 2010
Inference of causal regulators responsible for gene expression changes under different conditions is of great importance but remains rather challenging. To date, most approaches use direct binding targets of transcription factors (TFs) to associate TFs with expression profiles. However, the low overlap between binding targets of a TF and the affected genes of the TF knockout limits the power of those methods.
We developed a TF-centered downstream gene set enrichment analysis approach to identify potential causal regulators responsible for expression changes. We constructed hierarchical and multi-layer regulation models to derive possible downstream gene sets of a TF using not only TF-DNA interactions, but also, for the first time, post-translational modifications (PTM) information. We verified our method in one expression dataset of large-scale TF knockout and another dataset involving both TF knockout and TF overexpression. Compared with the flat model using TF-DNA interactions alone, our method correctly identified five more actual perturbed TFs in large-scale TF knockout data and six more perturbed TFs in overexpression data. Potential regulatory pathways downstream of three perturbed regulators— SNF1, AFT1 and SUT1 —were given to demonstrate the power of multilayer regulation models integrating TF-DNA interactions and PTM information. Additionally, our method successfully identified known important TFs and inferred some novel potential TFs involved in the transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth and in the pheromone response. Downstream regulation pathways of SUT1 and AFT1 were also supported by the mRNA and/or phosphorylation changes of their mediating TFs and/or “modulator” proteins.
The results suggest that in addition to direct transcription, indirect transcription and post-translational regulation are also responsible for the effects of TFs perturbation, especially for TFs overexpression. Many TFs inferred by our method are supported by literature. Multiple TF regulation models could lead to new hypotheses for future experiments. Our method provides a valuable framework for analyzing gene expression data to identify causal regulators in the context of TF-DNA interactions and PTM information.
- Knockout Experiment
- Pheromone Response
- Direct Transcription
- Diauxic Shift
- Overexpression Experiment
With the advance of high-throughput technologies such as DNA microarray, chromatin immunoprecipitation DNA chip (ChIP-chip) [1–3], yeast two-hybrid assays  and co-immunoprecipitation screens , various kinds of whole genome scale data are available, shedding light on the regulatory mechanisms in the biological system. Several new computational methods have been developed to combine various kinds of data to construct regulatory networks [6–11]. In addition, several researchers have strived to infer regulatory pathways connecting the known causal perturbation to the affected genes using physical interaction networks [12–15]. These inferred pathways could explain consequences of perturbations such as gene knockout effects. If the causal factor is unknown, however, inference of the causal factor from the consequences (e.g. a set of differentially expressed genes (DEGs)) is rather challenging.
To address this, Tu et al.  and Sutras et al.  integrated TF-DNA interactions and protein-protein interactions to map which gene among expression quantitative trait loci (eQTL) was the causal factor responsible for the observed changes in the downstream gene expression. However, the candidate causal factor was restricted to genes located within eQTLs, and their methods could not be widely applied if such information was not available. In another work, Pollard et al.  tried to discover underlying molecular causes of type 2 diabetes mellitus consistent with the expression changes based on 210,000 molecular cause-and-effect relationships assembled from literature. Yet the power of such kind of approach relies greatly on the size and quality of cause-and-effect relationships, which are often hard to collect.
Increasing amount of molecular interactions, including TF-DNA interactions, protein-protein interactions (PPI) and protein post-translational modifications (PTM), mapped from high-throughput technologies may provide significant information about cause-and-effect relationships. Previous approaches of associating TFs with expression changes were often based on direct binding targets of TFs [19–24], which were derived either by upstream sequence matches to a consensus binding motif [19–21, 23], or by TF-DNA interactions from ChIP-chip experiments [21, 22, 24]. Several studies, however, have pointed out the low overlap between direct targets bound by a TF and transcriptionally affected genes caused by perturbation to the same TF [25–28]. Backup in regulatory pathways is one possible reason for the low overlap, which leads to no expression changes observed for most direct targets of a TF under this TF knockout . The ability of TFs to affect gene expression through ways other than direct transcription may be another reason. Given the complexity of regulatory networks, if only TF-DNA interactions were used and simple flat regulation pathway was modeled, the power of those methods for inference of associated TFs would be limited. Integrating TF-DNA interactions with other directed interactions and considering hierarchical and multi-layer regulatory pathways through which TFs affect expressions of their downstream genes may be helpful. Protein-protein interactions provide limited information because PPIs normally imply no regulation direction. Protein post-translational modifications have rarely been considered for gene expression based causal inference, since PTM usually can not be detected at expression level.
Here we present a TF-centered downstream gene set enrichment analysis to identify potential causal regulators responsible for gene expression changes. Integrating TF-DNA interactions and PTM information, we constructed multi-layer regulation models progressively to derive possible downstream gene sets of a specific TF. PTM are incorporated because their regulation roles to proteins activation status are certain. TFs activity change would cause differential expressions of downstream genes, even though TFs themselves do not change at expression level. Compared with the method using only direct TF-DNA interactions, our method correctly identified five more actual perturbed TFs in knockout experiments  and six more TFs in overexpression experiments . The results suggest that in addition to direct transcription, indirect transcription and PTM are also responsible for the downstream effects of TFs perturbation, especially for TFs overexpression. Potential regulatory pathways downstream of three perturbed regulators — SNF1, AFT1 and SUT1 — were given to demonstrate the power of incorporating indirect transcription and/or PTM information.
Furthermore, our method successfully identified several known and novel potential regulators involved in the transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth  and in the pheromone response , some of which were validated by their changes in expression and/or phosphorylation status. Additionally, downstream regulation pathways of SUT1 in the transition process and AFT1 in the pheromone response were also supported by the mRNA and/or phosphorylation changes of their mediating TFs and/or “modulator” proteins.
Our results suggest that pathways through which TFs regulate the expression of downstream genes are condition dependent. With our methodology, many novel potential causal regulators and downstream regulation models may be proposed and evaluated. Our method provides a valuable framework for analyzing gene expression data to identify causal regulators in the context of TF-DNA interactions and PTM information, which may benefit disease mechanism studies and identification of potential interfering targets.
For the observed list of DEGs, we inferred the most likely causal regulators and the underlying pathways. P-values being equal to or less than 0.01 were considered to be significant and the corresponding TFs were reported as valid findings. If the actual perturbed TF was a valid finding and ranked at the top 20 of candidates, this TF was said to be correctly identified. We also tested our method using different numbers of top rank candidates to decide the correct identifications (top 15, top 25 and top 30 etc.). We found that the criterion about the number of top ranks had little impact on the performance of the method (Additional file 2), suggesting that the standard we used for the valid finding (p-value<=0.01) was quite stringent and most of valid findings ranked at the top. For previous methods that downstream genes of TFs were obtained through simple direct model (Model I) using TF-DNA interactions, only those TFs that affected gene expression through direct transcription could be correctly identified. In contrast, constructing hierarchical and multi-layer regulation models by the integration of TF-DNA interactions and PTM information, our method was expected to find not only TFs that affected gene expression through direct transcription, but also those that affected gene expression through indirect transcription and post-translational modifications.
We also built models in the following ways and compared the results from them with those from the six models: 1) We constructed models progressively without any constraint on the path length, i.e. with the path length from the initial TF to the last TF being greater than 2. We found that many TFs eventually got almost the same set of downstream genes when the path length was long enough and the method failed to infer most of the actual perturbed TFs. 2) We did not construct all six models fixedly but tried to infer which model explains the expression data best. For example, unlike direct targets of TF A, B, C and D comprising the downstream genes of TF A in the two-layer cascade regulation model (Model III), which combinations of TF B, C and D were inferred to comprise the regulation models of TF A in the case that regulation effects of TF A could be mediated by TF B, TF C and TF D. If direct targets of TF A and TF B obtained the most significant overlap with observed DEGs, this p-value was considered as the overlap significance obtained by TF A as causal regulators and used to rank the candidates. It was found that much more noise was introduced in this way and many actual perturbed TFs ranked lower in the candidate list. It is very likely that six models may not cover all the possible regulation topologies. However, we think some topologies happen at very low frequencies in real biological systems. If all the possible models were considered, it would increase the model space and lower the performance. Therefore, we limited our work to the six models with the belief that most frequent regulatory scenarios in the biological systems were well represented.
Post-translational modifications (PTM) information was obtained from S. cerevisiae phosphorylation network  and PTM-Switchboard . The former contains the majority of the well-characterized kinase- and phophatase-substrate relationships in S. cerevisiae (654 and 141, respectively) manually curated from literature. The latter constitutes the relationship between the TF and its “modulator” protein, which alters the TF’s activity through post-translational modifications. TF-DNA interactions were obtained from , which presented a framework for integrating seven distinct sources of evidences to score all possible TF-target interactions. We extracted all TF-target interactions with LLS (Log Likelihood Score)>4, yielding a total of 13,239 high confidence interactions. By integrating PTM and TF-DNA interactions, 139 TFs with the number of downstream genes being no less than 4 in any one of the six models were selected as candidates (Names and the number of downstream genes of 139 TFs in each model are listed in Additional file 3).
Two TF perturbation data sets [27, 29] were used to verify the method. Hu et al.  profiled the transcriptional response in S. cerevisiae strains with individual deletions of 269 TFs. Among 269 TFs, 128 are in aforementioned list of 139 candidates. The transcription responses of these 128 TFs knockout strains were selected to evaluate the power of the method. Chua et al.  provided the microarray expression data resulting from overexpression and/or deletion of 55 TFs, among which, those experiments of overexpression and/or deletion of TFs common with 139 candidates were selected. As a result, overexpression data of 39 TFs and deletion of 35 TFs were chosen. The standard p<=0.01 was used to select DEGs for Hu et al. data  and |z|>=2 was used for Chua et al. data  here. We also tested our method using different standards. We found that similar overlap p-values were obtained for most TFs even though different standards were used. Several TFs with very different overlap p-values often ranked at the top of the candidates. Furthermore, their ranks at the candidate list changed little, though their overlap p-values between the expected targets and the observed DEGs (chosen at different standards) changed a lot (detailed information in Additional file 2). Therefore, it may be concluded that our method is robust against the standard to select DEGs.
Our method was further applied to two datasets with no primary knockout or overexpression perturbation to discover important regulatory TFs involved in certain biological processes. Expression profiles during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth were obtained from . Expression data and phosphorylation information under pheromone response were from  and .
Method verification by the knockout data of 128 TFs
In higher eukaryotes, multiple TFs simultaneously, cooperatively or competitively, regulate genes. For those TFs forming transcription complex to coordinate the expression of genes, such as ARG80/ARG81, SWI4/SWI6 and MBP1/SWI6, they were all identified as causal regulators when one of their cooperative TFs was knocked out. For examples, ARG81 ranked 1st (p-value=6.61e-11) and ARG80 ranked 6th (p-value=2.12e-5) in the ARG81 knockout experiment, and ARG81 ranked 1st (p-value=9.81e-9) and ARG80 ranked 19th (p-value=6.97e-4) in the ARG80 knockout experiment. For those partially functionally redundant TFs (e.g., MSN2/MSN4) or promoter occupancy competitive TFs (e.g., YRR1/YRM1), however, they could not be correctly identified as causal regulators in their knockout experiments. It is possibly because that those TFs’ knockout effects can be partially or fully compensated by their backup TFs or competitive TFs.
The results (including the number of downstream genes of every TF in each model, the number of DEGs, the number and the p-value of the overlap between downstream genes and DEGs in each model, the minimum p-value obtained from six models and the minimum p-value obtained from acceptable models) of the knockout data of 128 TFs are listed in Additional file 4.
Possible regulatory pathways downstream of SNF1 knockout
SNF1 achieved the most significant overlap p-value (0.0077) from PTM-mediated direct model (Model II), while the overlap p-value was 1 (the number of the overlap between the observed DEGs of SNF1 knockout and the expected targets was 0) when only simple direct model was used. This may suggest that SNF1 affects gene expression through a PTM-mediated way, i.e., SNF1 functions as a kinase rather than a TF. This finding is consistent with previous literature. The SNF1p kinase complex, which phosphorylates serine and threonine residues, is essential for regulating the transcriptional changes associated with glucose depression through its deactivation of the transcriptional repressor MIG1 . SNF1 is involved in the activation of S. cerevisiae heat shock transcription factor under glucose starvation conditions . SNF1p is also known or predicted to phosphorylate a wide range of substrates, including SIP4 , MSN2 , GAT1 and GLN3 .
Differential expression of SNF1 and the overlap p-values of the observed DEGs and the expected downstream genes using PTM-mediated direct model (Model II)
Number of DEGs
p-value at Model II
ARC40 promoter mutant
RPT2 promoter mutant
MAS1 promoter mutant
GPI2 promoter mutant
ESF1 promoter mutant
Possible regulatory pathways downstream of AFT1 knockout
When simple direct model was used, the overlap p-value between the expected targets of AFT1 and the observed DEGs under AFT1 knockout was 0.0001, while the overlap p-value was 7.35e-11 when PTM-mediated two-layer cascade regulation model (Model IV) was used. Figure 5 illustrates PTM-mediated two-layer cascade regulation pathway downstream of AFT1 knockout. AFT1 affects the expression of two protein kinases, TPK1 and KSS1. TPK1 modifies the protein states of MSN2 and MSN4, while KSS1 modifies the protein states of DIG1 and STE12. Then these TFs lead to differential expressions of their target genes. TPK1 was differentially expressed in the AFT1 knockout experiment, which supported the possibility of this regulatory pathway. The expression of KSS1 was not changed, possibly due to the feedback regulation control of DIG1, STE12 and MSN4 on KSS1.
To further verify whether or not AFT1 functions through Model IV under specific conditions, expression data with great down expression of AFT1 were selected . In the response to environmental changes under YPD stationary phase 28 d, AFT1 showed 9.6 fold change of down expression. We compared the DEGs under this condition with the expected targets in the six models of AFT1, the most significant overlap was also achieved at PTM-mediated two-layer cascade regulation model (p-value:e-17).
Method verification by the overexpression of 39 TFs and deletion of 35 TFs
11 Actual perturbed TFs out of 35 TFs deletion experiments were correctly identified, while 17 perturbed TFs out of 39 TFs overexpression data were correctly identified. In comparison, 11 perturbed TFs out of 35 TFs deletion experiments and 11 out of 39 TFs overexpression ones were correctly inferred if only Model I was used. HAP4 and ROX1 were correctly identified by Model I but missed by our method in their knockout experiments. Although the same p-values were obtained (0.002675), HAP4 ranked 4th if Model I was used but ranked 22nd by our method. The dropped rank of HAP4 may be partially due to the increased noise level introduced by considering more models in our method. Additionally, considering no cooperative or competitive interactions between TFs may be another reason. In the HAP4 knockout experiment, HAP5 forming HAP complex with HAP4 ranked 1st, though HAP4 itself ranked 22nd. If such cooperative interaction between HAP5 and HAP4 was integrated into the method, HAP4 would rank much higher. The situation was similar for ROX1, which ranked 4th if Model I was used and ranked 29th by our method. Our method correctly identified SOK2 and SUT1, which were missed by Model I in deletion experiments. Our method also correctly identified six more perturbed TFs (MIG1, YAP1, INO2, MBP1, XBP1 and SUT1) from their corresponding overexpression experiments. The result showed that considering PTM and cascade regulation helped explain effects of TFs perturbation, especially effects of TFs overexpression. The results (including the number of expected targets of every TF in each model, the number of DEGs, the number and the significance of the overlap between the expected targets and the DEGs, the minimum p-value obtained from the six models and the minimum p-value from acceptable models) of the deletion of 35 TFs and overexpression of 39 TFs are listed in Additional file 5.
With the exception of ABF1, HSF1, MET4 and RAP1, which appeared only in overexpression experiments, the remaining 32 TFs were performed with both overexpression and deletion experiments. 7 of 32 TFs (MSN2, MSN4, GCN4, SWI4, STE12, SKN7 and PHO4) showed higher overlap significance between the direct targets of these TFs and the observed DEGs in overexpression experiments than those in deletion ones. This is partially due to the redundancy of TFs. For example, MSN2 and MSN4 are paralogous TFs with BLASTP E-value less than E-20, SWI4 and SKN7 have paralogous TFs with BLASTP E-value less than E-10. A subset of the homologous TFs bind to an overlapping group of targets, and thus it is not surprising that knocking out one of them has a small effect on the expression of its targets. In contrast to deletion, overexpression increases binding of TFs, and thus would activate most of their downstream targets. 2 out of 11 TFs in deletion experiments (SUT1 and SOK2), and 6 out of 17 TFs in overexpression experiments showed more significant overlap between the DEGs and the expected targets in other models than in Model I by 100 times. This may suggest that effects of TFs overexpression are more involved in indirect transcriptional or post-transcriptional regulation than those of TFs deletion.
We also compared our results on deletion experiments from  and those from . Simple direct model was responsible for the effects of two SWI4 deletion experiments. For some TFs, however, different pathways were involved in the downstream of two deletion experiments of the same TF. For example, simple direct transcription explained the effects of PHO4 deletion experiment provided by , while PTM-mediated two-layer cascade regulation model was the most likely model for the effects of the PHO4 deletion experiment provided by . This may imply that indirect transcriptional or post-transcriptional regulatory pathways downstream of TFs are condition-dependent, even in the case of the same TF deletion.
It should be noted that despite our prediction rate was less than 50%, it was much higher than that by random guess. If we randomly selected 20 TFs from the 139 candidates as causal regulators, the prediction rate was 14% (20/139). It would be even much lower if the quite stringent standard we used about valid findings (p-value<=0.01) was also required since only small number of TFs satisfied the standard. In comparison, the prediction rate of our method achieved 28% (36/128) on Hu et al. data, 31% (11/35) on Chua et al. deletion data and 44% (17/39) on Chua et al. overexpression data.
Possible regulatory pathways downstream of SUT1 overexpression
Method applied to transcriptome profiling during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth
To demonstrate the utility of the method to identify activated TFs in real biological process, we applied the method on transcriptome profiling during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth . We constructed a gold positive set as true activated TFs by selecting those TFs with two-fold or more differential expression from 139 candidates. The gold positive set consisted of 33 TFs.
Jaccard similarity score obtained by our method and by simple direct model during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth
Jaccard similarity score
The top 20 identified activated TFs during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth
p-value at Model I
p-value at most likely model
ROX1 and SUT1 ranked 6th and 4th, respectively, which were both differentially expressed. SUT1 was the target of ROX1, and SUT1 affected the expression of genes through hybrid two-layer cascade regulation model (Model V). This was consistent with the pathway of SUT1 illustrated in Figure 7, where the perturbation of SUT1 was mediated by GLN3, MSN2, MSN4 and HAP4. SIT4 (mediating the activity of GLN3), MSN2 and HAP4 were differentially expressed in the transition process, which further supported the possibility of the regulatory pathway of SUT1.
The overlap p-values of each TF in six models and the minimum p-value of each TF are listed in Additional file 6. TFs are ranked as causal regulators by their minimum p-values.
Results on the expression profiles in the transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth.
Having demonstrated that our method identified those activated TFs with differential expression, we tested whether our method could find activated TFs that were both differentially expressed and post-translationally modified. We applied our method to infer activated TFs for mRNA profiling data sets for yeast responding to the mating pheromone factor (wild-type cells after treatment with 50 nM α-factor for 120 min) .Those identified TFs were evaluated by the transcriptional data and phosphoproteomics data after treatment with 2 mM α-factor for 120 min . Although the treatment concentrations were different between these two datasets, there was evidence that the transcriptional response to α-factor saturated at concentrations above 15.8 nM .
Table 4 lists the top 10 identified TFs by our method. Among them, five TFs were differentially regulated and/or differentially phosphorylated, out of which, MSN4 would be missed if only simple direct model was used. SWI4 and STE12 were both differentially regulated and phosphorylated. Increased phosphorylation was observed for DIG1 (3.8 fold) and MSN4 (two fold). Increased mRNA expression was observed for TEC1. The involvement of the remaining five TFs (SWI6, MCM1, SSN3, SKN7 and AFT1) is known or can be inferred from literature. MCM1 in cooperation with STE12 (differentially regulated and phosphorylated) regulates cell cycle-dependent transcription of FAR1 (differentially regulated and phosphorylated) , which are essential for pheromone-induced cell cycle arrest. FAR1 is activated by MSN2 and repressed by the SSN3 kinase , indicating the possible involvement of SSN3 in the process. CDC28-CLN3 complex activates SBF (SWI4-SWI6) and MBF (MBP1-SWI4), and the function of CLN3 in G1 phase, including control of cell size and pheromone sensitivity, requires the protein of SWI6 . Decreased phosphorylated sites were observed for SWI4 and CDC28. Therefore, it can be inferred that SWI6 is also involved in the process. To survive pheromone stress, the yeast S. cerevisiae activates signaling through the Ca2+-activated phosphatase calcineurin to the transcription factor Crz1p , SKN7 are necessary for Crz1p-dependent transcriptional activation and Crz1p stabilization by SKN7 in vivo, which suggests that SKN7 is also an important regulator in the process. For AFT1, significant overlap (p-value=e-18) was obtained when PTM-mediated two-layer cascade regulation model (Model IV) was used. We found that the regulation pathway of AFT1 ( Figure 5) was supported by mRNA expression and phosphorylation changes of mediating TFs and kinases, where TPK1 was up-regulated, and MSN4, DIG1 and STE12 were all observed for hyperphosphorylation. In addition, overexpression of AFT1 leads to growth arrest of the G1 state , while pheromone also induces arrest in G1 phase. AFT1 was also predicted to be involved in the pheromone response .
The top 10 identified activated TFs in the pheromone response
p-value at Model I
p-value at the most likely model
Our work provides an initial step toward analyzing gene expression data to find causal regulators by integrating TF-DNA interactions and PTM information. We tested our method on large-scale TF deletion and overexpression experiments. The method correctly identified more actual perturbed TFs than the approach using only direct transcription, suggesting that indirect transcription and post-translation regulation are also responsible for TFs’ deletion/overexpression effects, especially for TFs’ overexpression effects. Our method successfully identified known causal regulators and also inferred some novel TFs, which could lead to new hypotheses for future experiments during the processes of a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth and pheromone response. Furthermore, possible regulatory pathways downstream of TFs in these processes were presented. Expression and phosphorylation states of genes/proteins in the regulatory pathways provided further evidence to support the validity of these pathways.
Although our method was developed to find causal TFs, it could be easily extended to discover causal signal molecules and kinases. For example, CDC28 is a catalytic subunit of the main cell cycle cyclin-dependent kinase. If downstream gene set of CDC28 was constructed by PTM-mediated direct model, the number of the overlap between the observed DEGs (number:1072) in pheromone response and expected targets of CDC28 (number: 969) was 270 and the p-value was 1.229705e-18. This suggests that CDC28 is involved in pheromone response, a finding that is supported by literature and consistent with experiments showing reduced phosphorylation of CDC28 .
In future work, we can further improve the method in several ways: 1) It could be beneficial to integrate into the framework information of transcriptional complexes and cooperative and competitive interactions. For example, although GCR1 was not correctly identified, RAP1 was identified with the 2nd rank (p-value: 5.53e-32) in GCR1 knockout experiment. It is known that the RAP1/GCR1 regulatory complex is required for efficient transcription of ribosomal protein (RP) and glycolytic genes . If such information of the cooperative interaction between RAP1 and GCR1 was integrated into the framework, GCR1 could be correctly identified as the causal regulator. 2) It could be helpful to integrate into the framework proteomics data. Protein abundance together with protein post-translational modifications status could be used to calculate the probability of existence of pathways, and then evaluate the possibility of the regulator as the cause. 3) It may be helpful to add sign in the model to represent the regulatory effects (activation or repression), to enhance the preciseness of the framework. 4) Our method would miss those TFs only responsible for small subset of DEGs because overlaps between downstream genes of those TFs and the whole set of DEGs would not be significant. Constructing downstream genes of combination of TFs may be beneficial in these cases. 5) The performance of our method relies heavily the size and quality of TF-DNA interactions and PTM information. However, all of the interactions, especially PTM information, are incomplete and variable in different cellular conditions. Limited and inaccurate information could mislead to biased paths and causal regulators. More abundant and accurate data available in the future would improve the power of the method.
Special acknowledgements go to Merck Research Laboratories, USA, for funding a joint postdoctoral program. We acknowledge Yvonne Poindexter from the Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center for her editing and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. Other funding for this work include: the National Basic Research Program of China (Grant No. 2009CB918404, No. 2006CB910700), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 30700154, No. 31070746, No. 60874105, No. 31070752), and Key Infectious Disease Project (Grant No. zx10002-021).
This article has been published as part of BMC Bioinformatics Volume 11 Supplement 11, 2010: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Genome Informatics (GIW2010). The full contents of the supplement are available online at http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2105/11?issue=S11.
- Odom D, Zizlsperger N, Gordon D, Bell G, Rinaldi N, Murray H, Volkert T, Schreiber J, Rolfe P, Gifford D: Control of pancreas and liver gene expression by HNF transcription factors. Science 2004, 303(5662):1378. 10.1126/science.1089769PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Cam H, Balciunaite E, Blais A, Spektor A, Scarpulla R, Young R, Kluger Y, Dynlacht B: A common set of gene regulatory networks links metabolism and growth inhibition. Molecular cell 2004, 16(3):399–411. 10.1016/j.molcel.2004.09.037View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Blais A, Tsikitis M, Acosta-Alvear D, Sharan R, Kluger Y, Dynlacht B: An initial blueprint for myogenic differentiation. Genes & development 2005, 19(5):553. 10.1101/gad.1281105View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Fields S, Song O: A novel genetic system to detect protein-protein interactions. Nature 1989, 340: 245–246. 10.1038/340245a0View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gavin AC, Bösche M, Krause R, Grandi P, Marzioch M, Bauer A, Schultz J, Rick JM, Michon AM, Cruciat CM, Remor M, Höfert C, Schelder M, Brajenovic M, Ruffner H, Merino A, Klein K, Hudak M, Dickson D, Rudi T, Gnau V, Bauch A, Bastuck S, Huhse B, Leutwein C, Heurtier MA, Copley RR, Edelmann A, Querfurth E, Rybin V, Drewes G, Raida M, Bouwmeester T, Bork P, Seraphin B, Kuster B, Neubauer G, Superti-Furga G: Functional organization of the yeast proteome by systematic analysis of protein complexes. Nature 2002, 415(6868):141–147. 10.1038/415141aView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bar-Joseph Z, Gerber G, Lee T, Rinaldi N, Yoo J, Robert F, Gordon D, Fraenkel E, Jaakkola T, Young R: Computational discovery of gene modules and regulatory networks. Nature biotechnology 2003, 21(11):1337–1342. 10.1038/nbt890View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wu W, Li W, Chen B: Computational reconstruction of transcriptional regulatory modules of the yeast cell cycle. BMC Bioinformatics 2006, 7(1):421. 10.1186/1471-2105-7-421PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lemmens K, Dhollander T, De Bie T, Monsieurs P, Engelen K, Smets B, Winderickx J, De Moor B, Marchal K: Inferring transcriptional modules from ChIP-chip, motif and microarray data. Genome biology 2006, 7(5):R37. 10.1186/gb-2006-7-5-r37PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chen G, Jensen S, Stoeckert C Jr: Clustering of genes into regulons using integrated modeling-COGRIM. Genome biology 2007, 8(1):R4. 10.1186/gb-2007-8-1-r4PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wei-Sheng W, Wen-Hsiung L: Identifying gene regulatory modules of heat shock response in yeast. BMC Genomics 2008, 9: 439. 10.1186/1471-2164-9-439View ArticleGoogle Scholar
- Gilchrist D, Fargo D, Adelman K: Using ChIP-chip and ChIP-seq to study the regulation of gene expression: Genome-wide localization studies reveal widespread regulation of transcription elongation. Methods 2009, 48(4):398–408. 10.1016/j.ymeth.2009.02.024PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yeang CH, Ideker T, Jaakkola T: Physical network models. J Comput Biol 2004, 11(2–3):243–62. 10.1089/1066527041410382View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Yeang CH, Mak HC, McCuine S, Workman C, Jaakkola T, Ideker T: Validation and refinement of gene-regulatory pathways on a network of physical interactions. Genome Biol 2005, 6(7):R62. 10.1186/gb-2005-6-7-r62PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Workman CT, Mak HC, McCuine S, Tagne JB, Agarwal M, Ozier O, Begley TJ, Samson LD, Ideker T: A systems approach to mapping DNA damage response pathways. Science 2006, 312(5776):1054–1059. 10.1126/science.1122088PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Ourfali O, Shlomi T, Ideker T, Ruppin E, Sharan R: SPINE: a framework for signaling-regulatory pathway inference from cause-effect experiments. Bioinformatics 2007, 23(13):i359-i366. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btm170View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Tu Z, Wang L, Arbeitman MN, Chen T, Sun F: An integrative approach for causal gene identification and gene regulatory pathway inference. Bioinformatics 2006, 22: e489-e496. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btl234View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Suthram S, Beyer A, Karp RM, Eldar Y, Ideker T: eQED: an efficient method for interpreting eQTL associations using protein networks. Mol Syst Biol 2008, 4: 162. 10.1038/msb.2008.4PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Pollard J Jr, Butte AJ, Hoberman S, Joshi M, Levy J, Pappo J: A computational model to define the molecular causes of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Diabetes Technol Ther 2005, 7(2):323–336. 10.1089/dia.2005.7.323View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roider HG, Manke T, O'Keeffe S, Vingron M, Haas SA: PASTAA: identifying transcription factors associated with sets of co-regulated genes. Bioinformatics 2009, 25(4):435–42. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btn627PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Kim TM, Chung YJ, Rhyu MG, Jung MH: Inferring biological functions and associated transcriptional regulators using gene set expression coherence analysis. BMC Bioinformatics 2007, 8: 453. 10.1186/1471-2105-8-453PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Boorsma A, Lu XJ, Zakrzewska A, Klis FM, Bussemaker HJ: Inferring condition-specific modulation of transcription factor activity in yeast through regulon-based analysis of genome wide expression. PLoS One 2008, 3(9):e3112. 10.1371/journal.pone.0003112PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hu H: An efficient algorithm to identify coordinately activated transcription factors. Genomics 2010, 95(3):143–150. 10.1016/j.ygeno.2009.12.006View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Palin K, Ukkonen E, Brazma A, Vilo J: Correlating gene promoters and expression in gene disruption experiments. Bioinformatics 2002, 18(Suppl 2):S172–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gao F, Foat BC, Bussemaker HJ: Defining transcriptional networks through integrative modeling of mRNA expression and transcription factor binding data. BMC Bioinformatics 2004, 5: 31. 10.1186/1471-2105-5-31PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Horak CE, Luscombe NM, Qian J, Bertone P, Piccirrillo S, Gerstein M, Snyder M: Complex transcriptional circuitry at the G1/S transition in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Genes Dev 2002, 16: 3017–3033. 10.1101/gad.1039602PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Phuc Le P, Friedman JR, Schug J, Brestelli JE, Parker JB, Bochkis IM, Kaestner KH: Glucocorticoid receptor-dependent gene regulatory networks. PLoS Genet 2005, 1: e16. 10.1371/journal.pgen.0010016PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hu Z, Killion PJ, Iyer VR: Genetic reconstruction of a functional transcriptional regulatory network. Nat Genet 2007, 39: 683–687. 10.1038/ng2012View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gitter A, Siegfried Z, Klutstein M, Fornes O, Oliva B, Simon I, Bar-Joseph Z: Backup in gene regulatory networks explains differences between binding and knockout results. Mol Syst Biol 2009, 5: 276. 10.1038/msb.2009.33PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Chua G, Morris QD, Sopko R, Robinson MD, Ryan O, Chan ET, Frey BJ, Andrews BJ, Boone C, Hughes TR: identifying transcription factor functions and targets by phenotypic activation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2006, 103: 12045–12050. 10.1073/pnas.0605140103PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roberts GG, Hudson AP: Transcriptome profiling of Saccharomyces cerevisiae during a transition from fermentative to glycerol-based respiratory growth reveals extensive metabolic and structural remodeling. Mol Genet Genomics 2006, 276(2):170–186. 10.1007/s00438-006-0133-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Roberts CJ, Nelson B, Marton MJ, Stoughton R, Meyer MR, Bennett HA, He YD, Dai H, Walker WL, Hughes TR, Tyers M, Boone C, Friend SH: Signaling and circuitry of multiple MAPK pathways revealed by a matrix of global gene expression profiles. Science 2000, 287(5454):873–880. 10.1126/science.287.5454.873View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- H Mehta M, Chechik G, Cagney G, Mukherjee P, Silva AC, Shales M, Collins SR, van Wageningen S, Kemmeren P, Holstege FC, Weissman JS, Keogh MC, Koller D, Shokat KM, Krogan NJ: Functional organization of the S. cerevisiae phosphorylation network. Cell 2009, 136(5):952–963. 10.1016/j.cell.2008.12.039View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Everett L, Vo A, Hannenhalli S: PTM-Switchboard--a database of posttranslational modifications of transcription factors, the mediating enzymes and target genes. Nucleic Acids Res 2009, 37(Database issue):D66–71. 10.1093/nar/gkn731PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beyer A, Workman C, Hollunder J, Radke D, Möller U, Wilhelm T, Ideker T: Integrated assessment and prediction of transcription factor binding. PLoS Comput Biol 2006, 2(6):e70. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.0020070PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Santangelo GM: Glucose signaling in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 2006, 70(1):253–282. 10.1128/MMBR.70.1.253-282.2006PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Hahn JS, Thiele DJ: Activation of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae heat shock transcription factor under glucose starvation conditions by Snf1 protein kinase. J Biol Chem 2004, 279(7):5169–5176. 10.1074/jbc.M311005200View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lesage P, Yang X, Carlson M: Yeast SNF1 protein kinase interacts with SIP4, a C6 zinc cluster transcriptional activator: a new role for SNF1 in the glucose response. Mol Cell Biol 1996, 16(5):1921–1928.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- De Wever V, Reiter W, Ballarini A, Ammerer G, Brocard C: A dual role for PP1 in shaping the Msn2-dependent transcriptional response to glucose starvation. EMBO J 2005, 24(23):4115–4123. 10.1038/sj.emboj.7600871PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bertram PG, Choi JH, Carvalho J, Chan TF, Ai W, Zheng XF: Convergence of TOR-nitrogen and Snf1-glucose signaling pathways onto Gln3. Mol Cell Biol 2002, 22(4):1246–1252. 10.1128/MCB.22.4.1246-1252.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Mnaimneh S, Davierwala AP, Haynes J, Moffat J, Peng WT, Zhang W, Yang X, Pootoolal J, Chua G, Lopez A, Trochesset M, Morse D, Krogan NJ, Hiley SL, Li Z, Morris Q, Grigull J, Mitsakakis N, Roberts CJ, Greenblatt JF, Boone C, Kaiser CA, Andrews BJ, Hughes TR: Exploration of essential gene functions via titratable promoter alleles. Cell 2004, 118(1):31–44. 10.1016/j.cell.2004.06.013View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gasch AP, Spellman PT, Kao CM, Carmel-Harel O, Eisen MB, Storz G, Botstein D, Brown PO: Genomic expression programs in the response of yeast cells to environmental changes. Mol Biol Cell 2000, 11(12):4241–4257.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Enjalbert B, Parrou JL, Teste MA, François J: Combinatorial control by the protein kinases PKA, PHO85 and SNF1 of transcriptional induction of the Saccharomyces cerevisiae GSY2 gene at the diauxic shift. Mol Genet Genomics 2004, 271(6):697–708. 10.1007/s00438-004-1014-8View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Haurie V, Boucherie H, Sagliocco F: The Snf1 protein kinase controls the induction of genes of the iron uptake pathway at the diauxic shift in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. J Biol Chem 2003, 278(46):45391–45396. 10.1074/jbc.M307447200View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Holstege FCP, Jennings EG, Wyrick JJ, Lee TI, Hengartner CJ, Green MR, Golub TR, Lander ES, Young RA: Dissecting the regulatory circuitry of a eukaryotic genome. Cell 1998, 95: 717–728. 10.1016/S0092-8674(00)81641-4View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Vincent O, Kuchin S, Hong SP, Townley R, Vyas VK, Carlson M: Interaction of the Srb10 kinase with Sip4, a transcriptional activator of gluconeogenic genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Mol Cell Biol 2001, 21(17):5790–5796. 10.1128/MCB.21.17.5790-5796.2001PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nishizawa M, Katou Y, Shirahige K, Toh-e A: Yeast Pho85 kinase is required for proper gene expression during the diauxic shift. Yeast 2004, 21(11):903–918. 10.1002/yea.1138View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Nishizawa M, Komai T, Morohashi N, Shimizu M, Toh-e A: Transcriptional repression by the Pho4 transcription factor controls the timing of SNZ1 expression. Eukaryot Cell 2008, 7(6):949–957. 10.1128/EC.00366-07PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Moreau JL, Lee M, Mahachi N, Vary J, Mellor J, Tsukiyama T, Goding CR: Regulated displacement of TBP from the PHO8 promoter in vivo requires Cbf1 and the Isw1 chromatin remodeling complex. Mol Cell 2003, 11(6):1609–1620. 10.1016/S1097-2765(03)00184-9View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wiatrowski HA, Carlson M: Yap1 accumulates in the nucleus in response to carbon stress in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Eukaryot Cell 2003, 2(1):19–26. 10.1128/EC.2.1.19-26.2003PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Maeta K, Izawa S, Okazaki S, Kuge S, Inoue Y: Activity of the Yap1 transcription factor in Saccharomyces cerevisiae is modulated by methylglyoxal, a metabolite derived from glycolysis. Mol Cell Biol 2004, 24(19):8753–8764. 10.1128/MCB.24.19.8753-8764.2004PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Veber P, Guziolowski C, Le Borgne M, Radulescu O, Siegel A: Inferring the role of transcription factors in regulatory networks. BMC Bioinformatics 2008, 9: 228. 10.1186/1471-2105-9-228PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Gruhler A, Olsen JV, Mohammed S, Mortensen P, Faergeman NJ, Mann M, Jensen ON: Quantitative phosphoproteomics applied to the yeast pheromone signaling pathway. Mol Cell Proteomics 2005, 4(3):310–327. 10.1074/mcp.M400219-MCP200View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Oehlen LJ, McKinney JD, Cross FR: Ste12 and Mcm1 regulate cell cycle-dependent transcription of FAR1. Mol Cell Biol 1996, 16(6):2830–2837.PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Bose S, Dutko JA, Zitomer RS: Genetic factors that regulate the attenuation of the general stress response of yeast. Genetics 2005, 169(3):1215–1226. 10.1534/genetics.104.034603PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Wijnen H, Landman A, Futcher B: The G(1) cyclin Cln3 promotes cell cycle entry via the transcription factor Swi6. Mol Cell Biol 2002, 22(12):4402–4418. 10.1128/MCB.22.12.4402-4418.2002PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Williams KE, Cyert MS: The eukaryotic response regulator Skn7p regulates calcineurin signaling through stabilization of Crz1p. EMBO J 2001, 20(13):3473–3483. 10.1093/emboj/20.13.3473PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Casas C, Aldea M, Espinet C, Gallego C, Gil R, Herrero E: The AFT1 transcriptional factor is differentially required for expression of high-affinity iron uptake genes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae. Yeast 1997, 13(7):621–637. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-0061(19970615)13:7<621::AID-YEA121>3.0.CO;2-UView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Beaver JE, Tasan M, Gibbons FD, Tian W, Hughes TR, Roth FP: FuncBase: a resource for quantitative gene function annotation. Bioinformatics 2010, 26(14):1806–1807. 10.1093/bioinformatics/btq265PubMed CentralView ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
- Deminoff SJ, Santangelo GM: Rap1p requires Gcr1p and Gcr2p homodimers to activate ribosomal protein and glycolytic genes, respectively. Genetics 2001, 158(1):133–143.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.