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

  • 6,904
    views
  • 1,061
    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
    Maksim Kleverov, Daria Zenkova ... Alexey A Sergushichev
    Research Article

    Transcriptomic profiling became a standard approach to quantify a cell state, which led to accumulation of huge amount of public gene expression datasets. However, both reuse of these datasets or analysis of newly generated ones requires significant technical expertise. Here we present Phantasus - a user-friendly web-application for interactive gene expression analysis which provides a streamlined access to more than 96000 public gene expression datasets, as well as allows analysis of user-uploaded datasets. Phantasus integrates an intuitive and highly interactive JavaScript-based heatmap interface with an ability to run sophisticated R-based analysis methods. Overall Phantasus allows users to go all the way from loading, normalizing and filtering data to doing differential gene expression and downstream analysis. Phantasus can be accessed on-line at https://alserglab.wustl.edu/phantasus or can be installed locally from Bioconductor (https://bioconductor.org/packages/phantasus). Phantasus source code is available at https://github.com/ctlab/phantasus under MIT license.

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Evolutionary Biology
    Ryan T Bell, Harutyun Sahakyan ... Eugene V Koonin
    Research Article

    A comprehensive census of McrBC systems, among the most common forms of prokaryotic Type IV restriction systems, followed by phylogenetic analysis, reveals their enormous abundance in diverse prokaryotes and a plethora of genomic associations. We focus on a previously uncharacterized branch, which we denote coiled-coil nuclease tandems (CoCoNuTs) for their salient features: the presence of extensive coiled-coil structures and tandem nucleases. The CoCoNuTs alone show extraordinary variety, with three distinct types and multiple subtypes. All CoCoNuTs contain domains predicted to interact with translation system components, such as OB-folds resembling the SmpB protein that binds bacterial transfer-messenger RNA (tmRNA), YTH-like domains that might recognize methylated tmRNA, tRNA, or rRNA, and RNA-binding Hsp70 chaperone homologs, along with RNases, such as HEPN domains, all suggesting that the CoCoNuTs target RNA. Many CoCoNuTs might additionally target DNA, via McrC nuclease homologs. Additional restriction systems, such as Type I RM, BREX, and Druantia Type III, are frequently encoded in the same predicted superoperons. In many of these superoperons, CoCoNuTs are likely regulated by cyclic nucleotides, possibly, RNA fragments with cyclic termini, that bind associated CARF (CRISPR-Associated Rossmann Fold) domains. We hypothesize that the CoCoNuTs, together with the ancillary restriction factors, employ an echeloned defense strategy analogous to that of Type III CRISPR-Cas systems, in which an immune response eliminating virus DNA and/or RNA is launched first, but then, if it fails, an abortive infection response leading to PCD/dormancy via host RNA cleavage takes over.