Skip to main content
. 2014 Dec 18;10(12):e1003943. doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003943

Table 1. TF comparison for I-SDREM and MT-SDREM.

H1N1 & H3N2 & H5N1 H1N1 & H3N2 H3N2 & H5N1 H1N1 & H5N1
I MT I MT I MT I MT
AR AR IRF1 IRF1 AHR◊ EP300 ATF2Inline graphic
BRCA1 BRCA1 IRF3 IRF3 JUN RELA◊ HIF1AInline graphic
ESR1 ESR1 FOSL2 FOSL2 PPARG TP53 STAT3Inline graphic
STAT1 STAT1 CEPBA IRF5Inline graphic RB1
CEBPAInline graphic NR3C1◊ TFAP2AInline graphic SMAD4
EP300Inline graphic SMAD3◊ SOX9
JUNInline graphic
PPARGInline graphic
RB1Inline graphic
SMAD4Inline graphic
SOX9Inline graphic
TP53Inline graphic

TFs predicted to regulate two or all three response networks. Each set of conditions is divided to two columns with the first column containing TFs at the intersection of the SDREM output for the conditions and the second the MT-SDREM results for these conditions. TFs identified by MT-SDREM but not SDREM have a Inline graphic next to them and vice versa have a ◊ next to them. Note that TFs listed for the pairwise overlap are in addition to the ones listed for the overall overlap. Thus JUN in the I-SDREM column of H3N2 & H5N1 is not highlighted since it was identified by MT-SDREM for all three conditions.