Skip to main content
. 2014 Sep 30;9(9):e108065. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0108065

Table 1. Top-20 TF combinations.

ID Putative CRM p-value Supp. Evidence
1 STE12, DIG1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
2 SWI6, SWI4 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
3 SWI6, MBP1, SWI4 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
4 SKN7, SOK2, PHD1 Inline graphic Inline graphic S
5 STE12, DIG1, TEC1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
6 SOK2, PHD1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
7 SWI6, MBP1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
8 MBP1, SWI4 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
9 RAP1, FHL1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
10 DIG1, SWI4, TEC1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
11 DIG1, TEC1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
12 AFT2, RCS1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
13 PHD1, SUT1 Inline graphic Inline graphic -
14 STE12, TEC1 Inline graphic Inline graphic P
15 STE12, SWI6, SWI4 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
16 SWI6, DIG1, SWI4 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
17 FKH2, NDD1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP
18 SOK2, SUT1 Inline graphic Inline graphic -
19 SKN7, SOK2 Inline graphic Inline graphic S
20 SWI6, STB1 Inline graphic Inline graphic SP

First dataset. The twenty TF combinations with the lowest p-value and highest support obtained when using the dataset by Harbison et al. Evidence column shows whether results were yielded when PubMed was queried for evidence in the literature (P), STRING [48] yielded a connected graph for the given TFs (S), both conditions (SP) or none (-) were met.