Mapping and analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans transcription factor sequence specificities

  1. Kamesh Narasimhan
  2. Samuel A Lambert
  3. Ally W H Yang
  4. Jeremy Riddell
  5. Sanie Mnaimneh
  6. Hong Zheng
  7. Mihai Albu
  8. Hamed S Najafabadi
  9. John S Reece-Hoyes
  10. Juan I Fuxman Bass
  11. Albertha J M Walhout
  12. Matthew T Weirauch
  13. Timothy R Hughes  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of Toronto, Canada
  2. University of Cincinnati, United States
  3. University of Massachusetts Medical School, United States
  4. Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, United States

Abstract

Caenorhabditis elegans is a powerful model for studying gene regulation, as it has a compact genome and a wealth of genomic tools. However, identification of regulatory elements has been limited, as DNA-binding motifs are known for only 71 of the estimated 763 sequence-specific transcription factors (TFs). To address this problem, we performed protein binding microarray experiments on representatives of canonical TF families in C. elegans, obtaining motifs for 129 TFs. Additionally, we predict motifs for many TFs that have DNA-binding domains similar to those already characterized, increasing coverage of binding specificities to 292 C. elegans TFs (~40%). These data highlight the diversification of binding motifs for the nuclear hormone receptor and C2H2 zinc finger families, and reveal unexpected diversity of motifs for T-box and DM families. Motif enrichment in promoters of functionally related genes is consistent with known biology, and also identifies putative regulatory roles for unstudied TFs.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Kamesh Narasimhan

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Samuel A Lambert

    Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Ally W H Yang

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Jeremy Riddell

    Department of Molecular and Cellular Physiology, Systems Biology and Physiology Program, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Sanie Mnaimneh

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Hong Zheng

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Mihai Albu

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  8. Hamed S Najafabadi

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  9. John S Reece-Hoyes

    Program in Systems Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  10. Juan I Fuxman Bass

    Program in Systems Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  11. Albertha J M Walhout

    Program in Systems Biology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  12. Matthew T Weirauch

    Center for Autoimmune Genomics and Etiology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  13. Timothy R Hughes

    Donnelly Centre for Cellular and Biomolecular Research, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
    For correspondence
    t.hughes@utoronto.ca
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Nir Friedman, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel

Version history

  1. Received: February 13, 2015
  2. Accepted: April 22, 2015
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: April 23, 2015 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: May 18, 2015 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2015, Narasimhan et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 6,901
    views
  • 1,057
    downloads
  • 81
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Kamesh Narasimhan
  2. Samuel A Lambert
  3. Ally W H Yang
  4. Jeremy Riddell
  5. Sanie Mnaimneh
  6. Hong Zheng
  7. Mihai Albu
  8. Hamed S Najafabadi
  9. John S Reece-Hoyes
  10. Juan I Fuxman Bass
  11. Albertha J M Walhout
  12. Matthew T Weirauch
  13. Timothy R Hughes
(2015)
Mapping and analysis of Caenorhabditis elegans transcription factor sequence specificities
eLife 4:e06967.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06967

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.06967

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    David Geller-McGrath, Kishori M Konwar ... Jason E McDermott
    Tools and Resources

    The reconstruction of complete microbial metabolic pathways using ‘omics data from environmental samples remains challenging. Computational pipelines for pathway reconstruction that utilize machine learning methods to predict the presence or absence of KEGG modules in incomplete genomes are lacking. Here, we present MetaPathPredict, a software tool that incorporates machine learning models to predict the presence of complete KEGG modules within bacterial genomic datasets. Using gene annotation data and information from the KEGG module database, MetaPathPredict employs deep learning models to predict the presence of KEGG modules in a genome. MetaPathPredict can be used as a command line tool or as a Python module, and both options are designed to be run locally or on a compute cluster. Benchmarks show that MetaPathPredict makes robust predictions of KEGG module presence within highly incomplete genomes.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Kenya Hitomi, Yoichiro Ishii, Bei-Wen Ying
    Research Article

    As the genome encodes the information crucial for cell growth, a sizeable genomic deficiency often causes a significant decrease in growth fitness. Whether and how the decreased growth fitness caused by genome reduction could be compensated by evolution was investigated here. Experimental evolution with an Escherichia coli strain carrying a reduced genome was conducted in multiple lineages for approximately 1000 generations. The growth rate, which largely declined due to genome reduction, was considerably recovered, associated with the improved carrying capacity. Genome mutations accumulated during evolution were significantly varied across the evolutionary lineages and were randomly localized on the reduced genome. Transcriptome reorganization showed a common evolutionary direction and conserved the chromosomal periodicity, regardless of highly diversified gene categories, regulons, and pathways enriched in the differentially expressed genes. Genome mutations and transcriptome reorganization caused by evolution, which were found to be dissimilar to those caused by genome reduction, must have followed divergent mechanisms in individual evolutionary lineages. Gene network reconstruction successfully identified three gene modules functionally differentiated, which were responsible for the evolutionary changes of the reduced genome in growth fitness, genome mutation, and gene expression, respectively. The diversity in evolutionary approaches improved the growth fitness associated with the homeostatic transcriptome architecture as if the evolutionary compensation for genome reduction was like all roads leading to Rome.