Table 2.
Model | Non-activated | Activated |
---|---|---|
a: Promoter: match to Cao et al. | ||
MPPC | −338.0 | −245.8 |
CHiCAGO | −332.2 | −331.4 |
MPPC + CHiCAGO | a−411.6 | a−358.8 |
b: Promoter: link to active chromatin | ||
MPPC | −1134.2 | −812.3 |
CHiCAGO | −659.5 | −560.1 |
MPPC + CHiCAGO | a−1231.1 | a−924.0 |
c: Validation: overlap baited promoter | ||
MPPC | −404.8 | −347.9 |
CHiCAGO | −430.0 | −419.2 |
MPPC + CHiCAGO | a−541.7 | a−499.0 |
d: Validation: expression at linked promoter | ||
MPPC | −1571.0 | a−1329.2 |
CHiCAGO | −871.9 | −430.2 |
MPPC + CHiCAGO | a−1640.3 | −1318.7 |
The best fitting model (lowest ΔBIC) is highlighted by a. a–d are defined in full in the “Methods” section. Briefly,
a whether the bait-prey pair corresponds to published CD4 + T cell promoter-enhancer networks [17];
b whether the prey fragment overlaps active chromatin states defined by [7];
c whether the prey overlaps a gene promoter;
d the level of expression of a gene associated with the prey fragment. In all cases, a robust clustered model was used to account for repeated observations at the prey fragment